Update On BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill

May 5: BP is currently attempting to conduct a recovery operation using a specially-built "dome" to cap the leak at the sea floor and is also conducting a controlled burn; the area of concern has widened in to include the west coast of Florida and the Keys; and officials are preparing for expanded impacts. Reportedly, BP officials have admitted to Congressional members in a closed door meeting, that as much as 60,000 barrels per day may be leaking from the well -- the last estimate was 5,000 barrels per day [See WIMS 5/3/10].

 

    At the direction of President Obama, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe will travel to the Gulf Coast this week to meet with Federal, state and local officials, as well as local business leaders, as part of their continued oversight of BP's efforts to plug the leak and contain the spill, and their ongoing emphasis on interagency coordination in response to the event.

    On Thursday, Secretary Napolitano, Secretary Locke and Administrator Lubchenco will travel to Biloxi, MS, to inspect response operations, meet with state, local and private sector leaders, and view firsthand staging areas for the deployment of boom to protect vital shoreline from the oil spill. Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Locke will then visit similar operations ongoing in Pensacola, FL. Administrator Lubchenco and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley will then visit Pascagoula, MS, to visit NOAA's seafood inspection lab.

    EPA Deputy Administrator Perciasepe will also travel on Thursday to Louisiana, where he will review EPA's ongoing air and water monitoring activities, meet with local and community leaders, and assess the environmental situation on the ground. On Friday, Lubchenco and Sutley will travel to Venice and St. Bernard Parish, LA, to inspect shoreline cleanup assessment activities and meet with state, local and private sector leaders about the administration's ongoing efforts to mitigate the spill's impact on public health, the environment, and the economy. Today, Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is touring Delta National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama, and the areas affected by the BP oil spill to assess the ongoing Federal response efforts.

 

    Today BP responders were preparing to conduct a controlled burn. As part of the coordinated response that combines tactics deployed above water, below water, offshore, and close to coastal areas, controlled burns remove oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and wildlife. No populated areas are expected to be affected by the controlled burn operations and there are no anticipated impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles. Responders said a successful controlled burn, lasting 28 minutes on April 28 removed thousands of gallons of oil.

 

    On May 4, the White House indicated that as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico grows and makes it way toward the coast, attention has turned to the question of who will pay for the clean-up and any possible damages to our natural habitats, businesses, and individuals who call this region home. An Administration blog posting indicates, ". . .let's be clear about a few things: BP is responsible for -- and will be held accountable for -- all of the very significant clean-up and containment costs. They will pay for the mess they've made. Beyond clean-up and containment, BP must be held responsible for the damages this spill causes." The Administration indicated that it "strongly supports efforts on Capitol Hill to raise the Oil Pollution Act damages cap significantly above $75 million."

    According to the posting, "Currently, under the Oil Pollution Act, if BP is found to be grossly negligent or to have engaged in willful misconduct or conduct in violation of federal regulations, then there is no cap under this specific law for damages. Simply put, the $75 million cap on damages under the Oil Pollution Act would not apply under these circumstances. Right now, this crisis is still very much unfolding so it will take time to determine what caused this spill and the extent of the damage that can be claimed under this one law. Changing the Oil Pollution Act so that its cap does not limit our ability to collect damages would increase our chances of collecting adequate compensation. In addition, we are examining what fines or damages BP could be liable for under additional applicable federal and state laws. The bottom line is that the Administration will aggressively pursue compensation from BP for any damages from this spill."

    Today (May 5), in response to the possibility of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill affecting the West Coast of Florida, representatives from BP, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) are meeting to plan a multi-agency response. Working together, the agencies have reviewed the area contingency plan and ensured all partners have access to, and are familiar with the plan. In meetings over the last couple days, the Coast Guard and FDEP have spoken with trustees from various national and state wildlife refugee areas, along with every county emergency management office on the West Coast of Florida. The agencies also met with over 30 members of non-governmental environmental organizations including Tampa Bay Watch, Save our Seabirds, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, Sierra Club, etc. The latest predictions from the NOAA, indicate no impact to the western coast of Florida, from Taylor County to Collier County within the next 72 hours.

    On May 4, The United States Coast Guard at Sector Key West, FL, in conjunction with its port partners and key stakeholders, have been actively preparing for possible marine pollution effects from the spill. As part of an ongoing preparation efforts, the Coast Guard hosted a joint meeting on with Federal, state, and local partners to discuss potential impacts and response priorities should the spill affect the waters of the Florida Keys. Agencies met to review highly sensitive areas in the Keys, prepared response strategies, and to share information and discuss pollution mitigation. Capt. Pat DeQuattro, sector commander at Coast Guard Sector Key West said, "Although it is still too soon to predict if or how the Florida Keys may be impacted by the Deepwater Horizon spill, we are focused on preparing for whatever those impacts may be."

    Access a release on the Administration officials in the Gulf Coast (click here). Access a NY Times article (click here). Access a release on the controlled burn and link to additional information (click here). Access the blog posting from the White House on BP responsibility (click here). Access a release on the FL West Coast preparation (click here). Access a release on the Keys preparation (click here). Access further updates on a joint companies and government unified command website (click here). Access local media reports from the Alabama Press-Register (click here).

EPA Proposes First-Ever National Coal Ash Disposal Rules

May 4: U.S. EPA announced it is proposing the first-ever national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants. Coal combustion residuals, commonly known as coal ash, are byproducts of the combustion of coal at power plants and are disposed of in liquid form at large surface impoundments and in solid form at landfills. The residuals contain contaminants like mercury, cadmium and arsenic, which are associated with cancer and various other serious health effects. EPA's risk assessment and damage cases demonstrate that, without proper protections, these contaminants can leach into groundwater and can migrate to drinking water sources, posing significant health public concerns.

    EPA said its action will ensure for the first time that protective controls, such as liners and groundwater monitoring, are in place at new landfills to protect groundwater and human health. Existing surface impoundments will also require liners, with strong incentives to close the impoundments and transition to safer landfills, which store coal ash in dry form. EPA said, "The proposed regulations will ensure stronger oversight of the structural integrity of impoundments in order to prevent accidents like the one at Kingston, Tennessee. Today's action also will promote environmentally safe and desirable forms of recycling coal ash, known as beneficial uses."

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "The time has come for common-sense national protections to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash. We're proposing strong steps to address the serious risk of groundwater contamination and threats to drinking water and we're also putting in place stronger safeguards against structural failures of coal ash impoundments. The health and the environment of all communities must be protected." EPA notes that coal combustion residual impoundments can be found in almost all states -- most often on the properties of power plants. There are almost 900 landfills and surface impoundments nationwide. Since the spill at Kingston, EPA has been evaluating hundreds of coal ash impoundments throughout the country to ensure their structural integrity and to require improvements where necessary. The results of the assessments are on EPA's website.

    EPA said the proposal opens a national dialogue by calling for public comment on two approaches for addressing the risks of coal ash management under the nation's primary law for regulating solid waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). One option is drawn from authorities available under Subtitle C, which creates a comprehensive program of federally enforceable requirements for waste management and disposal. The other option includes remedies under Subtitle D, which gives EPA authority to set performance standards for waste management facilities and would be enforced primarily through citizen suits. A chart comparing and contrasting the two approaches is available on the EPA website.

    Under both approaches EPA proposes to leave in place the "Bevill exemption" for beneficial uses of coal ash in which coal combustion residuals are recycled as components of products instead of placed in impoundments or landfills. Large quantities of coal ash are used today in concrete, cement, wallboard and other contained applications that should not involve any exposure by the public to unsafe contaminants. These uses would not be impacted by the proposal. EPA is seeking public comment on how to frame the continued exemption of beneficial uses from regulation and is focusing in particular on whether that exemption should exclude certain non-contained applications where contaminants in coal ash could pose risks to human health. The public comment period is 90 days from the date the rule is published in the Federal Register (soon).

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the complete 563-page prepublication copy of the proposed rule (click here). Access more information about the proposed regulation (click here). Access the chart comparing the two approaches described above (click here). Access the results of EPA's impoundment assessments (click here).

"A Massive and Potentially Unprecedented Environmental Disaster"

May 2: President Obama spent Sunday (May 2) touring the Gulf Coast area and getting a first-hand look at the ongoing response from the Federal government to the BP oil spill. After speaking to Admiral Thad Allen, who is serving as National Incident Commander, along with Coast Guard personnel, the President gave an update from Venice, Louisiana.

 

    The President said, "I think the American people are now aware, certainly the folks down in the Gulf are aware, that we're dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster. The oil that is still leaking from the well could seriously damage the economy and the environment of our Gulf states and it could extend for a long time. It could jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of Americans who call this place home. And that's why the federal government has launched and coordinated an all-hands-on-deck, relentless response to this crisis from day one. After the explosion on the drilling rig, it began with an aggressive search-and-rescue effort to evacuate 115 people, including three badly injured. And my thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the 11 workers who have not yet  -- who have not been found. 

 

    "When the drill unit sank on Thursday, we immediately and intensely investigated by remotely operated vehicles the entire 5,000 feet of pipe that's on the floor of the ocean.  In that process, three leaks were identified, the most recent coming just last Wednesday evening.  As Admiral Allen and Secretary Napolitano have made clear, we've made preparations from day one to stage equipment for a worse-case scenario.  We immediately set up command center operations here in the Gulf and coordinated with all state and local governments. . . So I want to emphasize, from day one we have prepared and planned for the worst, even as we hoped for the best. . ."

 

    According to some experts, the worst case scenario could be far worse than what has been generally reported. Following initial reports that their were no leaks of oil, estimates by BP and government sources said their may be 1,000 barrels of oil per day were leaking from the well. While that seemed like a lot, those estimates were subsequently updated to 5,000 barrels of oil per day. Now there are several reports that 20,000 to 25,000 barrels per day might be a more realistic estimate.

 

    However, Environmental Attorney Stuart Smith of Smith Stag Law Firm, New Orleans, who is representing commercial fisherman and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network relative to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, issued a release on April 30 saying, "I believe there is a strong possibility of a total failure of the BP Deepwater Horizon fluid control system. According to experts in the industry I have spoken to confidentially, the pipes from which the oil is currently leaking act as a choke on the oil flowing from the formation. A catastrophic failure could easily result in the release of 60,000 to 160,000 barrels of oil per day." Smith says, "In a worst case scenario, this amount of oil would constitute one Valdez every two days. At that rate of release, there could easily be a significant threat not only to the environment but to public health for those downwind of the oil slick. Air discharges of components of oil, such as benzene a known human carcinogen, and other volatile organic compounds could be significant. . ."

 

    Also, there have been further reports on the issue raised by Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson in a letter to the President on April 29 [See WMS 4/30/10]. Senator Nelson indicated that the Interior Department (DOI) in 2000 issued an alert calling for "reliable backup systems" in the event of a rig blowout. He said a decision was made in 2003 not to call for the "additional line of defense" and he has requested the DOI Inspector General to investigate the matter. Mike Papantonio, an environmental lawyer, representing Louisiana shrimpers indicated in an interview on the Ed Show that an "acoustic switch" would have prevented the catastrophe -- it's a failsafe that shuts the flow of oil off at the source. He said they cost only about half a million dollars each, and are required in off-shore drilling platforms other countries but not the United States. He said, "This was one of the new deregulations devised by Dick Cheney during his secret meetings with the oil industry at the beginning of Bush's first term."

 

    An April 28 article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) discusses the issue of the acoustic switch. The article indicates that, "the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort." But, it is reported that the major oil-producing countries of Norway and Brazil require them. WSJ reports that the "U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well. . . By 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said 'acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly.'"

 

    In his press briefing President Obama emphasized, "Let me be clear: BP is responsible for this leak; BP will be paying the bill.  But as President of the United States, I'm going to spare no effort to respond to this crisis for as long as it continues.  And we will spare no resource to clean up whatever damage is caused.  And while there will be time to fully investigate what happened on that rig and hold responsible parties accountable, our focus now is on a fully coordinated, relentless response effort to stop the leak and prevent more damage to the Gulf."

 

    A report from the Press-Register (Mobile, AL & surrounding communities) entitled, "Leaked report: Government fears Deepwater Horizon well could become unchecked gusher," indicates that the leak may be on the order of 50,000 barrels a day, or 2.1 million gallons a day. The article quotes Stephen Sears, chairman of the petroleum engineering department at Louisiana State University as saying, "Typically, a very good well in the Gulf can produce 30,000 barrels a day, but that's under control. I have no idea what an uncontrolled release could be."

 

    One of the first economic impacts of the spill is that NOAA has issued a notice that it is restricting fishing for a minimum of ten days in Federal waters most affected by the BP oil spill, largely between Louisiana State waters at the mouth of the Mississippi River to waters off Florida's Pensacola Bay (a map is available). The closure is effective immediately. Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Administrator, who met with more than 100 fishermen in Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish on April 30, said, "NOAA scientists are on the ground in the area of the oil spill taking water and seafood samples in an effort to ensure the safety of the seafood and fishing activities. I heard the concerns of the Plaquemines Parish fishermen as well other fishermen and state fishery managers about potential economic impacts of a closure. Balancing economic and health concerns, this order closes just those areas that are affected by oil. There should be no health risk in seafood currently in the marketplace."

 

    Roy Crabtree, NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Administrator said, "There are finfish, crabs, oysters and shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico near the area of the oil spill. The Gulf is such an important biologic and economic area in terms of seafood production and recreational fishing." According to NOAA, there are 3.2 million recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico region who took 24 million fishing trips in 2008. Commercial fishermen in the Gulf harvested more than 1 billion pounds of finfish and shellfish in 2008.

 

    NOAA has posted information and links on filing damage claims with BP (See link below). Also those who are not satisfied with BP's resolution, there is an additional avenue for assistance available through the Coast Guard once BP has finalized your claim. The NOAA release provides more information about what types of damages are eligible for compensation under the Oil Pollution Act and details.

 

    Access a blog post on the President's update with links to the complete speech and related information (click here). Access the release from attorney Stuart Smith (click here) and further extensive information (click here). Access a link to the Ed Show video interview with attorney Mike Papantonio (click here). Access a lengthy WSJ article on the acoustic switch (click here). Access the Press-Register article (click here). Access a release from NOAA (click here). Access the Department of Interior special Deepwater Horizon website (click here). Access a special EPA website on the BP spill (click here). Access further updates on a joint companies and government unified command website (click here).

BP Gulf Oil Spill May Be Environmental & Economic Disaster

Apr 30: At a press conference on the current economic conditions, President Obama delivered an update on the worsening conditions at what may develop to be the largest U.S oil spill ever [See WIMS 4/26/10]. The Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill, leaking 5,000 barrels of oils per day, is beginning to come ashore in Louisiana and is nearing the coast of Mississippi, Alabama and the panhandle of Florida. Winds blowing from south to north, which are expected to last all weekend, are making the situation worse.

 

    President Obama said, "I have dispatched the Secretaries of Interior and Homeland Security, as well as the Administrator of the EPA, my Assistant for Energy and Climate Change Policy, and the NOAA Administrator to the Gulf Coast to ensure that we continue to do everything necessary to respond to this event. And I expect their reports from the ground today.

    "As I said yesterday, BP is ultimately responsible under the law for paying the costs of response and cleanup operations, but we are fully prepared to meet our responsibilities to any and all affected communities. And that's why we've been working closely with state and local authorities since the day of the explosion. There are now five staging areas to protect sensitive shorelines; approximately 1,900 federal response personnel are in the area; and more than 300 response vessels and aircraft on the scene 24/7. We've also laid approximately 217,000 feet of protective boom, and there are more on the way.

    "I've order Secretary Salazar to conduct a thorough review of this incident and report back to me in 30 days on what, if any, additional precautions and technologies should be required to prevent accidents like this from happening again. And we're going to make sure that any leases going forward have those safeguards. We've also dispatched teams to the Gulf to inspect all deepwater rigs and platforms to address safety concerns.

    "So, let me be clear. I continue to believe that domestic oil production is an important part of our overall strategy for energy security, but I've always said it must be done responsibly, for the safety of our workers and our environment. The local economies and livelihoods of the people of the Gulf Coast as well as the ecology of the region are at stake. And we're going to continue to update the American people on the situation in the Gulf going forward."

    According to an April 30, update from the unified command a comprehensive oil well intervention and spill-response plan continues following the April 22 sinking of the Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling rig 130 miles southeast of New Orleans. Nearly 2,000 personnel are involved in the response effort with additional resources being mobilized as needed. The Federal government has been fully engaged in the response since the incident occurred April 20. The Minerals Management Service remains in contact with all oil and gas operators in the sheen area. Currently, no production has been curtailed as a result of the response effort.

 

    Incident Facts include: More than 217,000 feet of boom (barrier) has been assigned to contain the spill.  An additional 305,760 feet is available; To date, the oil spill response team has recovered 20,313 barrels (853,146 gallons) of an oil-water mix and are continuing recovery operations; 75 response vessels are being used including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels; 139,459 gallons of dispersant have been deployed and an additional 51,000 gallons are available; Five staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines -- Biloxi, MS, Pensacola, FL, Venice, LA, Pascagoula, MS, and Theodore, AL; A sixth staging area is being set up in Port Sulphur, LA; Weather conditions for April 30 - Winds from the southeast at 20 knots, 5 - 7 seas with slight chance of Friday afternoon showers; 126 people were on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig when the incident occurred; 11 remain unaccounted for; 17 were injured, 3 of them critically; 1 injured person remains in the hospital.

 

    In further Congressional developments, Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) sent a formal notice to the heads of America's top five oil companies requesting them to appear soon before his Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The exact date and time of the hearing will be announced soon. Representative Markey said, "From the health of our economy to the health of our environment, it's time for the American public to hear from the oil companies. Their opinions and answers on the issues of energy policy are vital given the push in Congress to construct a comprehensive energy independence strategy for our nation."

 

    Markey indicated in a release that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which is now leaking at a rate of 5,000 barrels of oil per day, could by next week exceed the size of the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969. This accident follows the release of thousands of miles of coastline by the Obama administration for potential new offshore drilling. Meanwhile, Markey indicated that gas and oil prices have continued to rise, even as American families and businesses are beginning to recover from a recession. The average price of gasoline has now crept towards three dollars, averaging nearly $2.90 per gallon, an increase of about 85 cents compared to this time last year.

 

    Markey said, "Four dollar gasoline helped break our economy's back. And now, just as we are starting a recovery, the price of gas is creeping back towards three dollars, threatening the budgets of families and small businesses across the nation. We need to craft a comprehensive strategy that protects consumers, and our nation's oil companies must join us in that effort."

 

    Markey also indicated that oil profits are also up for the top five oil companies -- Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell and Chevron. Exxon Mobil reported a quarterly profit increase of 38 percent, or $6.3 billion. BP, which owns the sunken rig, reported a first quarter net profit of $6.08 billion, an increase of 137 percent. ConocoPhillips reported increased earnings of $2.1 billion for the first quarter. Shell announced profits of $4.8 billion, rising by 60 percent. Chevron will announce its earnings report April 30.

 

    On April 28, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak (D-MI) sent letters to BP America and Transocean Ltd., the two companies involved in the explosion and oil spill. The Committee is investigating the adequacy of the companies' risk management and emergency response plans for accidental oil and gas releases at the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and other offshore deep water or ultra-deep water drilling facilities. The Committee has requested that the companies provide a number of documents and plans by May 14, 2010, and to advise the Committee by May 4, as to whether they will comply with the request on a voluntary basis [See WIMS 4/28/10].

 

    In an April 29 letter to President Obama, Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson said, ". . .if the spill continues for a month it may be nearly as large as the Exxon Valdez. If the crude leaking from the well starts washing ashore in the coming days, it may be an environmental and economic disaster that wreaks havoc for commercial fishing and tourism along the Gulf of Mexico coast. . . I'm asking that you also call for an immediate halt to test wells and all other exploratory operations in coastal waters. Such a pause should remain in effect pending the outcome of federal investigations into the cause of this incident and the identification of ways to prevent something similar fro happening again. . ."

 

    Nelson's letter indicates that the Interior Department (DOI) in 2000 issued an alert calling for "reliable backup systems" in the event of a rig blowout. He said a decision was made in 2003 not to call for the "additional line of defense" and he has requested the DOI Inspector General to investigate the matter.

 

    The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) with Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), which has jurisdiction over offshore energy development, will hold a hearing May 6 to review current issues related to offshore oil and natural gas development, including the Department of the Interior's recent five-year planning announcements and the accident in the Gulf of Mexico. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will testify.

 

    Access the President's statement (click here). Access further updates on a joint companies and government unified command website (click here). Access official updates on Twitter (click here). Access official updates on Facebook (click here). Access a release from Markey (click here). Access links to the letter from Waxman and Stupak (click here). Access the letter from Senator Nelson (click here). Access extensive links to additional information on Senator Nelson actions related to offshore drilling (click here). Access the Presidential press briefing on 4/29 with statements from various agency heads and Q&A (click here).

Cape Wind Project Reaction Demonstrates Wind Energy Dichotomy

Apr 28: Reaction to the Department of Interior Cape Wind project approval in Nantucket Sound [See WIMS 4/28/10] is an indication of the dichotomy of opinion that exists regarding wind energy that has fractured environmental, business and political interest groups. On the one hand, imagine an issue that can garner the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Greenpeace, while at the same time split the opinions Congressional members; and cause a wide ranging coalition of stakeholder groups to say they will immediately file suit opposing the project approval.

 

    Senator John Kerry (D-MA) released a statement saying, "This day was a long time in coming, but I believe the future of wind power in the Massachusetts and the United States will be stronger knowing that the process was exhaustive, and that it was allowed to work and wind its way through the vetting at all levels with public input. I have always advocated wind energy in Massachusetts and I accept and support Secretary Salazar's judgment today that Cape Wind should go forward. This is jobs and clean energy for Massachusetts."

 

     Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) released a statement saying, "I am strongly opposed to the administration's misguided decision to move forward with Cape Wind. While I support the concept of wind power as an alternative source of energy, Nantucket Sound is a national treasure that should be protected from industrialization. With unemployment hovering near ten percent in Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project will jeopardize industries that are vital to the Cape's economy, such as tourism and fishing, and will also impact aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes in the area. I am also skeptical about the cost-savings and job number predictions we have heard from proponents of the project."

 

    Representative Bill Delahunt (D-MA), representing the Cape Code, Nantucket Sound area, issued a statement saying, "Cape Wind is the first offshore wind farm to be built in the wrong place, in the wrong way, stimulating the wrong economies. Offshore wind energy has great potential, but we have missed an opportunity here to do it right. It is simply bad public policy to give 'no bid' leases to developers and their Wall Street investors for over 24 square miles of public waters and access to hundreds of millions in public subsidies each year. This will be the most expensive and most heavily subsidized offshore wind farm in the country at over $2.5 billion, with power costs to the region that will be at least double. Cape Wind will also be the first industrial scale wind power plant in the middle of an ocean sanctuary, in the middle of a candidate National Marine Sanctuary site, in a site eligible for listing on the National Register, in a Native American 'sacred' site, and in a federally designated critical fisheries habitat. It's the first wind farm in the Atlantic flyway; a major pathway for migratory birds and an important seabird habitat. . . The Interior Department decision will now lead to a new chapter of legal battles and potential setbacks to an important industry that holds great promise for our country."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) hailed the approval and said, "With this historic decision, the answer to America's energy future is blowing in the wind. The same winds that delivered the Mayflower to Massachusetts and created the Perfect Storm will now deliver a clean energy future to Massachusetts and create new jobs. America's energy future can now ride the winds of change out of our dirty energy doldrums. I commend Secretary Salazar's wisdom and his commitment to the environmental review process. On the same day that a massive oil slick is growing in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening the coastline, the Obama administration's Cape Wind decision shows that our country has a choice in how we capture the energy found in our oceans. The Obama administration is moving forward with a comprehensive offshore energy plan that will enable America to finally move beyond oil and look to the winds, the waves, the tides, and the sun to create an American-led clean energy future."

    Audra Parker, president and CEO of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound (APNS) said, "While the Obama Administration today dealt a blow to all of us who care deeply about preserving our most precious natural treasures -- this fight is not over. Litigation remains the option of last resort. However, when the federal government is intent on trampling the rights of Native Americans and the people of Cape Cod, we must act. We will not stand by and allow our treasured public lands to be marred forever by a corporate giveaway to private industrial energy developers." Lawsuits will be filed on behalf of a coalition of environmental groups -- including the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Three Bays Preservation, Animal Welfare Institute, Industrial Wind Action Group, Californians for Renewable Energy, Oceans Public Trust Initiative (a project of the International Marine Mammal Project of the Earth Land Institute), Lower Laguna Madre Foundation -- against the federal Fish and Wildlife Service and Minerals Management Service for violations of the Endangered Species Act.

    Bill Kovacs, senior vice president of Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, issued a statement commending the Department of Interior on its decision and said, "As America's first offshore wind farm, Cape Wind reflects the true spirit of American enterprise and a significant step forward toward achieving a more secure, diverse, and prosperous energy future. This project will serve as a model of innovation as others look at developing coastal wind resources and other clean energy projects across the country. Cape Wind is perhaps the nation's most infamous example of the horrors of Not in My Backyard (NIMBY). Over the coming decades, the U.S. will need many more similar wind projects. The Chamber looks forward to working with Secretary Salazar in providing the same decisive leadership on other energy initiatives."

 

    Kert Davies, Research Director at Greenpeace issued a statement saying, "Today's announcement that Cape Wind is moving forward is an enormous step forward toward America's clean energy future and the fight to solve global warming.  It is a shot of welcome good news in the face of climate and energy policy confusion in Washington and an oil spill of epic proportions in the Gulf.  Greenpeace has been campaigning to get the Cape Wind project built for nearly a decade, and today's victory is worth celebrating. It long overdue. There could be no clearer direction for America's energy future and global warming leadership. . . Cape Wind is the keystone project that we hope kickstarts America's clean energy future. . . Instead of pursuing expansion of dangerous offshore oil drilling that will do nothing to solve our oil addiction, America should be investing our time and money in renewable energy and global warming solutions.  In fact, Cape Wind will make obsolete an old dirty oil-burning power plant with 420 megawatts of new clean electricity. . ."

 

    Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "Cape Wind represents a significant clean energy first for America. It shows us we can repower our country, we can do it the right way, and we can start today. Renewable energy projects like these not only help fight climate change, they can create jobs and play a central role in our economic recovery. The United States can be a world leader on clean energy, and offshore wind power has enormous potential to help us get there. This is a major victory for America's clean energy future -- and will help ramp up the U.S. offshore wind industry."

 

    Access a statement from Senator Kerry (click here). Access a release from Senator Brown (click here). Access a release from Rep. Delahunt (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a release from APNS (click here). Access the APNS website for additional information (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber with links to additional information on NIMBY (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from NRDC(click here).

Interior Approves Cape Wind Energy Project In Nantucket Sound

Apr 28: Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced the long awaited approval of the Cape Wind renewable energy project on Federal submerged lands in Nantucket Sound. The approval will require Cape Wind Associates, LLC (CWA), the developer of the $1 billion wind farm, to agree to additional binding measures to minimize the potential adverse impacts of construction and operation of the facility. The controversial Cape Wind energy project would be located 4.7 miles offshore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound.

 

    The project, originally proposed in 2001, would consist of 130, 3.6 megawatt wind turbine generators covering 24 square miles in Federal waters offshore Massachusetts with the capacity to produce a maximum electric output of 468 megawatts with an average anticipated output of 182 megawatts. The average expected production from the proposed wind farm could provide about 75 percent of the electricity demand for Cape Cod and the Islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. At average expected production, Cape Wind could produce enough energy to power more than 200,000 homes in Massachusetts.

 

    Salazar made the announcement at the State House in Boston and said, "After careful consideration of all the concerns expressed during the lengthy review and consultation process and thorough analyses of the many factors involved, I find that the public benefits weigh in favor of approving the Cape Wind project at the Horseshoe Shoal location. With this decision we are beginning a new direction in our Nation's energy future, ushering in America's first offshore wind energy facility and opening a new chapter in the history of this region." The Cape Wind project would be the first wind farm on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.

 

    A number of similar projects have been proposed for other northeast coastal states, positioning the region to tap 1 million megawatts of offshore Atlantic wind energy potential, which could create thousands of manufacturing, construction and operations jobs and displace older, inefficient fossil-fueled generating plants, helping significantly to combat climate change. Salazar emphasized that the Department had taken extraordinary steps to fully evaluate Cape Wind's potential impacts on traditional cultural resources and historic properties, including government-to-government consultations with the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and that he was "mindful of our unique relationship with the Tribes and carefully considered their views and concerns."

    Because of concerns expressed during the consultations, Interior has required the developer to change the design and configuration of the wind turbine farm to diminish the visual effects of the project and to conduct additional seabed surveys to ensure that any submerged archaeological resources are protected prior to bottom disturbing activities. Under the revisions, the number of turbines has been reduced from 170 to 130, eliminating turbines to reduce the visual impacts from the Kennedy Compound National Historic Landmark; reconfiguring the array to move it farther away from Nantucket Island; and reducing its breadth to mitigate visibility from the Nantucket Historic District.

    Salazar said, "After almost a decade of exhaustive study and analyses, I believe that this undertaking can be developed responsibly and with consideration to the historic and cultural resources in the project area. Impacts to the historic properties can and will be minimized and mitigated and we will ensure that cultural resources will not be harmed or destroyed during the construction, maintenance, and decommissioning of the project."

    He pointed out that Nantucket Sound and its environs are a working landscape with many historical and modern uses and changing technologies. He said a number of tall structures, including broadcast towers, cellular base station towers, local public safety communications towers and towers for industrial and business uses are located around the area. Three submarine transmission cable systems already traverse the seabed to connect mainland energy sources to Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Island. Visual and physical impacts associated with Nantucket Sound and its associated shorelines abound; it is not an untouched landscape.

    Salazar disagreed with the Advisory Council's conclusion that visual impacts from the proposed wind farm, which will be situated between and at substantial distance from Cape Cod, Nantucket Island and Martha's Vineyard, provide a rationale for rejecting the siting of the project. The viewshed effects are not direct or destructive to onshore traditional cultural properties. In no case does the turbine array dominate the viewshed. The project site is about 5.2 miles from the mainland shoreline, 13.8 miles from Nantucket Island and 9 miles from Martha's Vineyard.

    The Secretary also disagreed that it is not possible to mitigate the impacts associated with installation of piers for wind turbines in the seabed, noting that piers for bridges, transmission lines and other purposes are routinely built in relatively shallow waters consistent with those found in Horseshoe Shoals. A number of marine archaeological studies have indicated that there is low probability that the project area contains submerged archaeological resources. Most of the area has been extensively reworked and disturbed by marine activities and geological processes. The Advisory Council's regulations provide that the Interior Department must take into account the Council's comments on particular projects. The Department, as the decision-making authority, is required to consider the Council's comments but is not legally bound to follow its recommendations or conclusions.
 
    The Cape Wind Associates, LLC facility would occupy a 25-square-mile section of Nantucket Sound and generate a maximum electric output of 468 megawatts with an average anticipated output of 182 megawatts. At average expected production, Cape Wind could produce enough energy to power more than 200,000 homes in Massachusetts. Horseshoe Shoals lies outside shipping channels, ferry routes and flight paths but is adjacent to power-consuming coastal communities. One-fifth of the offshore wind energy potential of the East Coast is located off the New England coast and Nantucket Sound receives strong, steady Atlantic winds year round. The project includes a 66.5-mile buried submarine transmission cable system, an electric service platform and two 115-kilovolt lines connecting to the mainland power grid. 

    Access a release from DOI with links to a Fact Sheet, Project Site Map, the Secretary's Response to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and additional information on the project (click here). Access the MMS website for the project for complete background information and extensive documents (click here).

Groups React To K-G-L Climate-Energy Bill Setback

Apr 27: Following the abrupt announcement by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that he would be "unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time," [See WIMS 4/26/10] a number of groups and organizations have expressed their opinions on the latest developments. After months in the development, Senator Graham made his announcement just two days before Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Graham were scheduled to reveal their tripartisan American Power Act (K-G-L). Graham said he was upset that the Senate and Administration might make immigration reform a priority over energy and climate legislation. 

    On April 26, major environmental organizations including: Alliance for Climate Protection; Blue Green Alliance; Environment America; Environmental Defense Fund; League of Conservation Voters; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; Sierra Club; and Union of Concerned Scientists issued a brief joint statement. The groups said, "Everyday the Senate fails to pass clean energy and climate legislation we put our economy, our national security and our environment at greater risk. Americans are demanding the millions of jobs, energy independence, and clean air and water comprehensive legislation can deliver. Inaction is too costly, and the challenge is too urgent. The tireless work of Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman is proof positive that bipartisan success is well within reach. The House has passed historic legislation; now it is time for the Senate and the White House to stay focused and finish the job. The moment is ours. Now is the time for our leaders to act."

    Subsequently, on April 27 an expanded group of 31 organizations issued a joint letter to the U.S. Senate. The groups included: 1Sky, Alliance for Climate Protection, American Rivers, Blue Green Alliance, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for International Environmental Law, Clean Water Action, Climate Solutions, Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Green For All, Interfaith Power and Light, Izaak Walton League of America, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society, National Tribal Environmental Council, National Wildlife Federation, Native American Rights Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, Pew Environment Group, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Sierra Club, The Trust for Public Land, The Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund.

    In their letter the groups said, "Special interests have fought energy reform for decades. They've kept America dependent on foreign oil and protected corporations that pollute the air our children breathe and the water they drink. It is long past time to end our reliance on old technology and dirty energy sources and put America back in control of its energy future. Every day that goes by without a comprehensive clean energy and climate policy helps our enemies, hurts our economy and puts our security at risk.

    "Without a bipartisan, comprehensive national clean energy and climate policy, America's businesses are hamstrung and cannot make the investments that will create millions of jobs in the new clean energy sector. Without a comprehensive policy, we cannot achieve the reductions in carbon pollution that are necessary to protect the planet. Without a comprehensive policy, we cannot end the practice of exporting $1 billion a day for foreign oil and will remain at the whim of hostile regimes.

    "The United States Senate stands at a moment in history in which decisions made today will have a lasting impact on generations of Americans to come. The Senate faces a choice between leading America forward in a new clean energy economy or holding America back by preserving the failed energy policies of the past. The Senate has a profound responsibility to future generations to enact policies that enhance our economic, environmental and national security. Now is the time to pass a strong comprehensive clean energy and climate bill. It is up to you to ensure that it happens this year."

    The American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE), an organization representing 3,000 businesses that support the passage of clean energy and climate legislation, issued a statement on the delay in the introduction of K-G-L energy legislation and said, "The American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) strongly urge the U.S. Senate to continue its efforts to move forward with a comprehensive climate and energy bill as soon as possible. American businesses, large and small, are urging Congress to act in order to make the United States a world leader in clean energy technology, reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, and create millions of new jobs. Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman have been working diligently to craft a bill that will have bipartisan support. This is a critical moment in the legislative debate. Now, is the time for Senate leadership and its members to act."

    Access the joint release from environmental organizations (click here). Access the release-letter from 31 groups (click here). Access a release from ABCE (click here).

Sen. Graham Pulls Out Of Tripartisan Energy & Climate Deal

Apr 24: After months of backroom negotiations on the highly anticipated rollout of the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman (K-G-L) climate and energy bill scheduled for today (April 26, 2010), the Republican leg of the tripartisan effort has pulled out. In a remarkable display of political gamesmanship in the middle of a highly charged political environment in the nation's Capitol, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced Saturday that he would be "unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time." Senator Graham's political maneuvering is apparently based on his belief that the Senate and Administration are no longer interested in energy and climate legislation and instead are more interested in immigration reform and that Congress and the Administration are not capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time.

 

    Senator Graham's announcement comes amidst an incredibly volatile and politically charged atmosphere in Washington, DC with the recent passage of the controversial health care reform legislation, an upcoming Supreme Court appointee, and major issues on the table including: Wall Street financial reform, dangerous immigration reform unrest in Arizona, and an urgency to address energy reform and climate change legislation -- all in advance of highly contentious mid-term elections in just six months.

    In a letter Graham said in part, "I want to bring to your attention what appears to be a decision by the Obama Administration and Senate Democratic leadership to move immigration instead of energy. Unless their plan substantially changes this weekend, I will be unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time. I will not allow our hard work to be rolled out in a manner that has no chance of success. Recent press reports indicating that immigration -- not energy -- is their priority have not been repudiated. This has destroyed my confidence that there will be a serious commitment and focus to move energy legislation this year. All of the key players, particularly the Senate leadership, have to want this debate as much as we do. This is clearly not the case. . ."

    Graham continued, "Moving forward on immigration -- in this hurried, panicked manner -- is nothing more than a cynical political ploy. I know from my own personal experience the tremendous amounts of time, energy, and effort that must be devoted to this issue to make even limited progress. . . Let's be clear, a phony, political effort on immigration today accomplishes nothing but making it exponentially more difficult to address in a serious, comprehensive manner in the future. Again, I truly appreciate the tremendous amount of time you have committed to the effort to make our nation more energy independent. I look forward to continuing to work with you so that when the U.S. Senate finally decides to address this issue we will be prepared for battle and confident of a successful outcome in the effort to make our nation energy independent once and for all."

    Senator John Kerry (D-MA) released a statement saying, "For more than six months, Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and I have been meeting for hours each day to find a bi-partisan path forward and build an unprecedented coalition of stakeholders to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year. We all believe that this year is our best and perhaps last chance for Congress to pass a comprehensive approach. We believe that we had reached such an agreement and were excited to announce it on Monday, but regrettably external issues have arisen that force us to postpone only temporarily.  

    "I remain deeply committed to this effort which I have worked on for more than twenty years. We have no choice but to act this year. The American people deserve better than for the Senate to defer this debate or settle for an energy-only bill that won't get the job done. Senator Graham came forward and has made a significant contribution to both the process and the product. Joe and I deeply regret that he feels immigration politics have gotten in the way and for now prevent him from being engaged in the way he intended. But we have to press forward. Lindsey has helped to build an unprecedented coalition of stakeholders from the environmental community and the industry who have been prepared to stand together behind a proposal. That can't change. We can't allow this moment to pass us by.

 

    "Joe and I will continue to work together and are hopeful that Lindsey will rejoin us once the politics of immigration are resolved. We will continue to work and we will do everything necessary to be ready when the moment presents itself. The White House and Senate Leadership have told us from the start that this is the year for action, and until they tell us otherwise we're pressing forward."

    Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) issued a statement saying, "I want to thank Senator Graham for his contribution to writing the American Power Act and I regret that allegations of partisan politics will prevent us from introducing the bill on Monday [4/26/10] as planned. I know from all of our work over the past year that Senator Graham shares our commitment to this bill that will create American jobs, move us closer to energy independence, and reduce pollution.  I look forward to Senator Graham rejoining our efforts after we work through the concerns that are preventing us from advancing a cause the three of us believe in so deeply. I remain committed to the American Power Act and am excited about what passage of the bill will do to promote energy security and invigorate our economy.  I will not give up and will continue to work with Senator Kerry, Senator Graham, and the broad coalition of industry and environmental support this bill has generated to pass the American Power Act this year."

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a statement indicating his desire to pass both immigration and energy reform this year. Senator Reid said, "Immigration and energy reform are equally vital to our economic and national security and have been ignored for far too long. As I have said, I am committed to trying to enact comprehensive clean energy legislation this session of Congress. Doing so will require strong bipartisan support and energy could be next if it's ready. I have also said we will try to pass comprehensive immigration reform. This too will require bipartisan support and significant committee work that has not yet begun.

    "I appreciate the work of Senator Graham on both of these issues and understand the tremendous pressure he is under from members of his own party not to work with us on either measure. But I will not allow him to play one issue off of another, and neither will the American people. They expect us to do both, and they will not accept the notion that trying to act on one is an excuse for not acting on the other."

    Access the complete letter from Senator Graham included within an informative article from the National Journal (click here). Access the statement from Senator Kerry (click here). Access the statement from Senator Lieberman (click here). Access the statement from Senator Reid (click here).

NAS Report Says Ocean Acidification Is A Growing Problem

Apr 22: The National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) released a Congressionally requested study -- Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean -- that indicates the changing chemistry of the world's oceans is a growing global problem and unless man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are substantially curbed, or atmospheric CO2 is controlled by some other means, the ocean will continue to become more acidic. The long-term consequences of ocean acidification on marine life are unknown, but many ecosystem changes are expected to result. The study Committee said the Federal government's National Ocean Acidification Program, currently in development, is a positive move toward coordinating efforts to understand and respond to the problem.

 

    According to a summary, the ocean absorbs approximately a third of man-made CO2 emissions, including those from fossil-fuel use, cement production, and deforestation. The CO2 taken up by the ocean decreases the pH of the water and leads to a combination of chemical changes collectively known as ocean acidification. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased approximately 0.1 unit -- from about 8.2 to 8.1 -- making them more acidic.  Models project an additional 0.2 to 0.3 drop by the end of the century. This rate of change exceeds any known to have occurred in hundreds of thousands of years.  The ocean will become more acidic on average as surface waters continue to absorb atmospheric CO2. 

 

    The committee said it found that studies on a number of marine organisms have shown that lowering seawater pH with CO2 affects biological processes, such as photosynthesis, nutrient acquisition, growth, reproduction, and individual survival depending upon the amount of acidification and the species tested.  For example, some of the strongest evidence of the potential effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems comes from experiments on organisms with calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.  The results showed decreases in shell and skeletal growth in a range of marine organisms, including reef-building corals, commercially important mollusks such as oysters and mussels, and several types of plankton at the base of marine food webs. 

 

    The Committee said, "The ability of various marine organisms to acclimate or adapt to ocean acidification is unknown, but existing data suggest that there will be ecological winners and losers, leading to shifts in the composition and functioning of many marine ecosystems. Such ecosystem changes could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources."

 

    The Committee indicated that although changes in ocean chemistry caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 can be determined, not enough information exists to assess the social or economic effects of ocean acidification, much less develop plans to mitigate or adapt to them. The Federal government has taken initial steps to respond to the nation's long-term needs with the development of the National Ocean Acidification Program. The committee found that legislation has laid the foundation for a program that will advance our understanding and improve our response to ocean acidification. 

 

    The Committee recommended six key elements of a successful National Ocean Acidification Program: (1) an integrated ocean acidification observation network that includes the development of new tools, methods, and techniques to improve measurements; (2) research in eight broad areas to fulfill critical information gaps; (3) assessments to identify stakeholder concerns and a process to provide relevant information for decision support; (4) a data management office that would ensure data quality, access, and archiving, plus an information exchange that would provide research results, syntheses, and assessments to managers, policymakers, and the general public; (5)  facilities to support high-quality research and training of ocean acidification researchers; (6) an effective 10-year strategic plan for the program that will identify key goals, set priorities, and allow for community input, in addition to a detailed implementation plan.

 

    Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to a report brief and summary (click here). Access summary information and link to the complete report (click here).

New Report Probes Health Effects Of Climate Change

New Report Probes Health Effects Of Climate Change - Apr 22: The vulnerability of people to the health effects of climate change is the focus of a report released by a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-led Federal interagency group that includes NOAA. The report, A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change, calls for coordinating Federal research to better understand climate's impact on human health and identifying how these impacts can be most effectively addressed. The report was published by Environmental Health Perspectives and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 

    The report indicates what is known and the significant knowledge gaps in understanding of the consequences of climate change on 11 major illness categories, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and stroke, asthma and other respiratory disorders, food-borne diseases and nutrition, weather and heat-related fatalities, and water and vector-borne infectious diseases. Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator said, "To mitigate and adapt to the health effects of climate change, we must first understand them. This report is a vital new roadmap for doing that. There is an urgent need to get started, and I am pleased that we can bring NOAA climate science and NOAA capabilities in linking ocean and human health and a range of other monitoring and prediction tools to the table."

    Health experts from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NIH Fogarty International Center, NOAA, U.S. EPA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy contributed to the report.

    Research recommendations include examining how diseases in marine mammals might be linked to human health; investigating how climate change might contaminate seafood, beaches and drinking water; and understanding the impact of atmospheric changes on heat waves and air-borne diseases. There are questions about the effects of increased rainfall and extreme weather events on sewage discharges and run-off and what this will mean to human health. Integrating human, terrestrial and aquatic animal health surveillance with environmental monitoring is recommended to better understand emerging health risks like Lyme disease, West Nile virus, malaria, and toxins from marine algae.  

    To address disaster planning and management, the report encourages research aimed at strengthening healthcare and emergency services, especially when events such as floods, drought and wildfires can affect human health both during and after an event. The report also identifies the need for more effective early warning systems providing, for example, an alert to those with cardiovascular disease on extreme heat days or when air pollution is high. Other issues include susceptible and displaced populations; public health and health care infrastructure; essential capacities and skills, particularly for modeling and prediction; the integration of climate observation networks with health impact and surveillance tools, and communication and education.

    Access a release from NOAA (click here). Access the complete 78-page report (click here).

Bipartisan America's Commitment To Clean Water Act

Apr 21: Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I), introduced legislation which he said would reaffirm the ability of the Clean Water Act to protect the nation's waters, including wetlands. H.R. 5088, "America's Commitment to Clean Water Act," will restore bedrock protections from water polluters who place families and communities nationwide at risk. Representatives John Dingell (D-MI.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-MI.), who joined Oberstar at a press conference, are original cosponsors of the bill.

    According to a release In 2001 and 2006, two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court "threw the nation's clean water programs into turmoil, creating confusion and uncertainty for communities, developers, and agricultural interests, and placed at risk the nation's ability to restore, protect, and maintain water quality and the water-related environment. The Supreme Court overruled 30 years of regulatory policy and limited the scope of the waters protected by the Clean Water Act." [Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers in 2001 and Rapanos v. United States in 2006]. Oberstar said his bill restores the Clean Water Act to its pre-2001 status.

    The release indicates that on February 28, the New York Times reported that as a result of the two Supreme Court decisions, companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters without being prosecuted. According to the article, EPA regulators working on those cases estimate that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the last four years. Further, data from 2008, the most recent year available, show there were over 20,000 beach closings and advisories that year due to pollution, and studies in the Great Lakes show that as many as 10 percent of beachgoers report getting sick after swimming in beach waters open for swimming.

    Representative Oberstar said, "Turmoil, confusion, and uncertainty are no way to run a program. That is why I developed legislation to restore the common understanding of the scope of the Clean Water Act based on decades-old interpretations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. By restoring the common understanding and practice as existed in 2001 of the extent to which the nation's waters and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act, we can provide much-needed certainty to the regulated community, and avoid costly litigation over responsibility for protecting clean water."

    Representative Oberstar continued saying, "Opponents of the Clean Water Act argue that the Federal government should not require a permit for everything you do that might affect a wet area. I agree. The Clean Water Act never required such permits, and I do not offer legislation that would do so. Simply put, if it was not regulated before 2001, it will not be regulated with the enactment of my legislation. However, some people have opposed the Clean Water Act for decades, and it should not come as a surprise that these same groups are using recent Supreme Court decisions as justification to roll back protections under the Clean Water Act. On this, I strongly disagree."

    "Clean, safe water is a basic right for all Americans. Yet, unless we act, the Clean Water Act cannot ensure that right," said Oberstar. "Since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, Americans have overwhelmingly expressed their support for protecting our nation's waters and keeping them safe from polluters. H.R. 5088 will restore the nation's commitment to clean water and protect the health and safety of all Americans."

    The release indicates that two years ago, the T&I Committee conducted a thorough, day-long hearing that heard from two dozen witnesses on five panels who both supported and opposed prior legislation introduced by Oberstar. He invited suggestions from any and all interested parties. Oberstar said, "The bill that I introduce today is a new bill that responds to comments I heard from witnesses at our hearing and other stakeholders. It more clearly and specifically targets its one objective -- addressing two Supreme Court decisions that I believe were wrongly decided. This bill includes multiple changes to emphasize that it will reaffirm and restore the original scope of the Clean Water Act, and not expand its geographic scope."

    Oberstar's original Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) was introduced on May 22, 2007, also with Representatives John Dingell and Vernon Ehlers supporting, and with 150 co-sponsors and endorsements from 300 organizations representing the conservation community, family farmers, fishers, boaters, labor unions and civic associations [See WIMS 5/22/07].

    The substance of the new bill strikes the term "navigable waters" and replaces it with "waters of the United States." And, the bill defines "waters of the United States" to include the current regulatory definition excluding waste treatment systems including treatment ponds or lagoons, and excluding prior converted croplands. Both "waste treatment system" and " prior converted cropland" are also defined.

    Access a release from Representative Oberstar (click here). Access the 11-page H.R. 5088 (click here). Access a fact sheet "What the Bill Actually Does and Does Not"(click here). Access a table comparing the bill to prior legislation (click here). Access a section by section summary (click here). Access a video of the press briefing including statements from supporters (click here). Access the WIMS Special Report on Rapanos and related activities (click here). Access multiple WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posting on the Supreme Court decisions and CWA (click here).

State Department Summary Of Major Economies Forum Meeting

Apr 19: State Department representatives U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman issued a brief summary of the April 18-19 meeting -- the sixth Meeting at the Leaders' representative level of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) that took place in Washington, DC [See WIMS 4/19/10]. It was attended by officials from the seventeen major economies, as well as the United Nations, with Colombia, Denmark, Grenada, and Yemen also participating in the session. The MEF includes Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The previous MEF meeting took place in London last October [See WIMS 10/19/09].

    According to the summary, participants agreed that smaller, informal discussions such as the Major Economies Forum contributed to success in Copenhagen and can facilitate and enrich the discussions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the multilateral forum for negotiating climate change. Parties also highlighted the importance of discussions being representative and transparent. Participants generally felt that Copenhagen Accord represented an important step forward, and that it provided important political consensus that should be reflected regarding the key issues in the negotiations leading up to the UNFCCC Cancun meeting scheduled for November 29 to December 10,  2010.

    Participants discussed goals for Cancun and beyond. There was a discussion of the role of the Kyoto Protocol and the form of a legal outcome. There was also a discussion of the key issues that need to be addressed to have a successful outcome in Cancun, noting the importance of setting realistic expectations for Cancun. Recognizing the urgency of moving forward, participants felt that "in Cancun countries should at a minimum agree on a balanced set of decisions informed by the Copenhagen Accord."

    Participants discussed what work needs to be done in the year ahead, including "the need to elaborate the measurement, reporting, and verification and other transparency provisions of the Accord." In this regard, participants welcomed India's presentation on practical approaches to Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation and international consultations and analysis. Various participants also spoke to equity, the role of markets, engaging smaller countries in the mitigation effort, how to ensure that the approach going forward reflects the dictates of science, domestic actions already underway to implement mitigation commitments under the Accord, and actions to reduce deforestation. Participants supported the Mexican Presidency's efforts to prepare the 16 meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16).

    Many countries noted the importance of moving forward promptly with the Accord's "Fast Start financing provisions" in a transparent fashion. Several countries presented information on the actions they were already undertaking in response to their fast start financing commitment under the Copenhagen Accord. The participants were briefed on the Clean Energy Ministerial to be held July 19-20, 2010 in Washington DC that aims to advance key activities in the Technology Action Plans of the Global Partnership launched by Leaders in L'Aquila July 2009 [See WIMS 7/13/09].

    The U.S. also released a 2-page document on the "fast start" efforts. The document states in part that, "The United States is committed to the full implementation of the Copenhagen Accord. As part of this commitment, we are working together with our partners to provide 'fast start' climate finance approaching $30 billion during the period 2010-2012 to help meet adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries. Climate-related appropriations for 2010 total $1.3 billion, and the Administration has requested $1.9 billion in appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. These funds include support for the Administration's pledge to provide $1 billion for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+). In addition to these appropriations, U.S. development finance and export credit agencies are on track to provide more than $700 million in 2010, and nearly $900 million in 2011, in financial instruments that help American firms and investors wit their foreign partners, deploy clean energy technologies in develop countries."

    A release from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) indicates that the next ministerial meetings will be convened by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Petersburg, Germany from May 2-4 and by Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg in Oslo, Norway on May 27. High-level talks among Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) concluded last week in Brasilia, Brazil. The UN Climate Treaty Parties are expected to conduct a ministerial meeting shortly after their next round of talks in Bonn, Germany, in June.

    EDF's International Counsel Annie Petsonk said, "Having the climate talks proceed in May in several international forums presents challenges, but it also creates opportunities for coalitions to emerge among nations that move swiftly to embrace carbon regulation and position themselves for clean economic growth. That competition presents an even greater imperative for the Obama Administration to make a serious push now for a balanced energy-climate bill in the U.S. Senate."

    Access the State Department meeting summary (click here). Access the U.S. fast track document (click here). Access a release from EDF with links to additional information (click here). Access the State Department MEF website (click here). Access the MEF website for information on past meetings (click here). Access various media reports on the meeting (click here). Access links to a number of documents posted by OECD on the issue of MRV (click here).