• Transport Firm Fined $10M for Buzzards Bay Oil Spill
  
• Energy Department Funds Low Wind Speed Power
  
• New York Gets First New Power Source Since Blackout
  
• Bush Nominates New Chief for Army Corps of Engineers
  
• Investment Firms Look to EPA Performance Track
  
• Data Needed to Assess Endangered Species Consulting
  
• Utah Prairie Dog On the Brink
  
• Conservationists Challenge Natomas Basin Development
  
• Brood X Cicadas to Emerge in May After 17 Years
  
• EPA Considers Revising Fuel Economy Measurements
  

Transport Firm Fined $10M for Buzzards Bay Oil Spill

Under a plea agreement filed in federal court Monday, the Bouchard Transportation Company (BTC) based in Hicksville, New York will be required to hire a local pilot, experienced with the waters of Buzzards Bay, to guide BTC tugboats and barges through Buzzards Bay.

The spill occurred when an oil barge towed by a BTC tugboat traveled outside the clearly marked Buzzards Bay channel and struck rocky shoals lying at a depth of 22 feet.

The indictment alleges that BTC negligently caused the oil spill because its employee, the mate in charge of the vessel, operated the tugboat in a negligent manner and because BTC allowed this individual to remain at the helm of one of its tugboats despite repeated concerns that were raised about his competency. The mate is alleged to have left the wheelhouse unattended and failed to monitor radio communications, so he missed radio warnings that his boat was heading out of the clearly marked Buzzards Bay Channel.

The second count alleges that BTC violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by killing protected bird species as a result of this oil spill. The oil spill killed 450 federally protected birds, required the closure of thousands of acres of shellfish beds in Buzzards Bay, and affected close to 90 miles of Massachusetts' beaches and coastline.

U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan said in a statement, "This substantial fine of $10 million will provide critically needed funds to enhance conservation efforts. Bouchard Transportation will also be required to comply with strict requirements aimed at preventing this type of environmental tragedy from ever happening again."

BTC will be required to pay $9 million of the $10 million fine at the time of sentencing. Seven million dollars of the fine will be deposited in the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund for BTC's violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This fund is used by the Department of the Interior to finance public-private partnerships aimed at carrying out long term conservation projects that provide and enhance habitat for the migratory birds, fish and wildlife which depend on these fragile areas for their survival.

The other $2 million will be directed toward the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for BTC's violations of the Clean Water Act. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is administered by the U.S. Coast Guard and used to pay clean up costs and damage claims for oil spills in which the responsible party is unknown.

BTC will also be placed on probation for a period of three years. The final $1 million portion of the criminal fine will be suspended and will be imposed only if BTC fails to comply with the conditions of probation.

Energy Department Funds Low Wind Speed Power

Officials said Monday the value of the cost-shared projects is expected to total $60 million over the next four years.

The announcement came at the wind industry's Global Windpower 2004 Conference in Chicago, the first worldwide wind industry event to be held in the United States. The conference is on through Wednesday, featuring more than 220 exhibitors and pavilions.

"The nation's vast wind energy resources can play a much larger role in our energy supply portfolio,” said Energy Department Deputy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow. “These industry and university partnerships will help develop next generation wind technology and open the door to wind power at many locations around the country that otherwise would not be cost-competitive.”

The commercial wind power development has occurred to date has been at high wind sites. The new low wind speed projects will focus on technology improvements for making low wind speed sites cost competitive with the high wind sites.

The new partnerships are being launched under a technology development project aimed at the department's goal of reducing wind powered electricity generation costs at low speed sites to three cents per kilowatt-hour by 2012.

The selected project partners are from states across the country. The largest is General Electric Global Research of Niskayuna, New York with a total projected funding of over $31.5 million for two developments.

Other partners include: Clipper Windpower Technology in California; Global Energy Concepts in Washington, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Native American Technologies in Colorado, Northern Power Systems in Vermont, Tennessee Valley Infrastructure Group, and Valmont Industries in Nebraska.

Some industry proposals for low wind speed technology that may be developed in the near future are - advanced drive trains with novel configurations, advanced power electronics to improve overall efficiency, lighter and quieter rotors made with new materials, advanced controls to monitor overall system health and reduce maintenance costs, and taller tower designs that can be assembled on-site.

The U.S. wind industry grew by some 1,687 megawatts in 2003 – bringing the U.S. total to 6,347 megawatts, some 20 percent of the world’s total.

But industry advocates fear this growth will stall because the U.S. Congress failed to renew the federal wind production tax credit in December.

That cut the industry’s momentum, according to Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association. “The U.S. wind energy industry is calling for a swift extension so development can resume,” Swisher said, “and for consistent policy support in the years ahead to unleash pent-up investments ready to flow into the vast U.S. market."

New York Gets First New Power Source Since Blackout

Bush Nominates New Chief for Army Corps of Engineers

The nomination comes with an appointment to the grade of Lieutenant General, subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

Strock currently serves as the Director of Civil Works and recently returned from Iraq, where he was the Deputy Director of Operations for the Coalition Provisional Authority.

He would become the 51st Chief of Engineers and would replace Lieutenant General Robert Flowers, who has served in that role since October 2000.

The leadership transition comes amid growing controversies regarding the agency’s oversight of Halliburton contracts in Iraq and growing calls for reform of the Army Corps, which has more influence than any other federal agency over the America's waterways, wetlands, floodplains, and coasts.

Through its civil works program, the Army Corps undertakes the development and restoration of the nation's water and related resources and is charged with operating and maintaining federally owned water resources projects.

The Army Corps is also responsible for protecting waters and wetlands, and restoring sites contaminated as a result of the atomic weapons development program.

A slew of studies have identified cases where the Army Corps produced inaccurate economic studies to justify large scale construction projects and a recent report by conservation and taxpayer groups found it is moving ahead with more than $12 billion in projects that harm the environment and waste taxpayer dollars

“By any objective measure, General Flowers’ tenure has been disastrous,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch whose organization represents Corps employees who have disclosed many problems and questionable practices at the agency. “Rather than seizing the opportunity for change and charting a new course for the Corps, General Flowers instead acted as a pom-pom waving cheerleader promoting the same discredited tactics even as they became less and less defensible.”

Ruch says a key question in General Strock’s confirmation will be the extent to which he embraces congressional reform proposals designed to strengthen both the analytic and environmental performance of the Corps.

Investment Firms Look to EPA Performance Track

Ratings are used by investors to help make informed investment decisions. Positive results can increase investor confidence, strengthen brand recognition, and boost stock prices.

In 2003, Innovest Strategic Value Advisors became the first investment firm to use Performance Track membership as a criterion in its ratings.

Calvert now monitors Performance Track membership to identify potential companies to include in its socially responsible mutual funds. KLD uses Performance Track data to assess how well companies prevent pollution and eliminate wasteful byproducts. The interest of these companies indicates a growing trend toward socially responsible investing.

"Investment advisors have discovered that environmental performance can be an excellent indicator of stock market potential, "said Chuck Kent, EPA Director for the Office of Community and Business Innovation, "and Performance Track members represent many of the top environmental performers in the United States today."

The program started in June 2000, and today 344 companies are members of Performance Track, including 3M, Anheuser-Busch, BMW, Clairol, Dow, E.I Du Pont de Nemours, IBM, International Paper, Johnson & Johnson, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, Nestle, Pfizer, Raytheon, Ryder Transportation, Snap-On Tools, Syngenta, Texas Instruments, U.S. Borax, Unilever and Yamaha Motors.

To qualify for a Performance Track designation companies must meet a complex set of criteria including compliance with legal requirements and voluntary commitments, pollution prevention, continuous improvement in environmental performance, including areas not subject to regulations, and sharing information on environmental performance with the community.

Performance Track facilities voluntarily exceed regulatory requirements, implement environmental management systems, work closely with their communities, and make three-year goals to protect the environment and public health.

Kent says the EPA is willing to cooperate with other investment firms to encourage the development of programs that promote environmental protection, although the EPA cannot endorse the purchase or sale of products or services of any specific investment firm.

Find out more about Performance Track criteria online at: http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/index.htm

Data Needed to Assess Endangered Species Consulting

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, all federal agencies must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure any activities they authorize, fund or conduct will not jeopardize endangered species or their habitat.

“Neither agency’s databases captured all the elements needed to reliably determine the length of the process,” the GAO said.

Critics say the process has become too costly and time consuming and is burdening federal agencies without producing measurable conservation benefits.

Environmentalists defend the provision as a critical part of the Endangered Species Act and contend delays are due to underfunding – a view supported by the little evidence the GAO could unearth.

The GAO examined consultations from 1998 through 2002 conducted in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. They determined that neither agency can “discern the level of effort devoted to Endangered Species Act consultations.”

From 1997 through 2000, 25 species were listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act in the northwestern United States, including bull trout, several species of salmon and other species with large geographic ranges.

The new workload has added to the delays and frustration, the GAO said, and as a result “many proposed activities were delayed – some for months, others for years – because of the requirement to consult.”

“Officials with the Services acknowledged these delays and attributed them to a lack of resources … and the learning curve associated with dealing with newly listed species,” according to the GAO. “However, officials noted that the process is essential in protecting species.”

“GAO recommends that the Services improve the data about the time and effort to complete the process. GAO further recommends that the Services and other federal agencies work together to clarify the process and evaluate improvement efforts.”

Utah Prairie Dog On the Brink

The groups sent the petition to reclassify the Utah prairie dog as endangered on February 3, 2003. By law, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to issue a finding on whether a petitioned action is warranted 12 months after receiving a petition.

"Citizen petitions are currently the only way endangered species are designated as protected under the Endangered Species Act," said Tori Woodard of the Utah group Escalante Wilderness Project. "The refusal of the federal government to provide timely findings on petitions erodes the key role of citizens in providing a last line of defense for endangered wildlife."

The conservation groups advocating increased protection for the Utah prairie dog are Forest Guardians, Boulder Regional Group, Center for Native Ecosystems, Escalante Wilderness Project, and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

The Utah prairie dog has experienced steep declines over the past few years, which the groups blame in part on poor implementation of the Endangered Species Act.

The species was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1973, but reclassified to threatened in 1984 under pressure from the developers, ranchers and the state of Utah. The reclassification allowed the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a special rule permitting shooting of this prairie dog species.

The groups cite the shooting program and a generally unsuccessful translocation program as factors responsible for continued Utah prairie dog declines. In addition, habitat conservation plans have allowed for additional killing of prairie dogs and destruction of their habitat.

In a letter sent to the groups in November 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it was unconcerned by population fluctuations and would not provide a timely petition finding.

The conservation groups contend the Utah prairie dog population has declined from 5,878 individual animals in 2000 to 3,741 in 2003.

The 2003 census count is the lowest count since 1995.

Census counts are thought to capture 50 percent of the total Utah prairie dog population, suggesting that there are fewer than 7,500 adult Utah prairie dogs in existence today, a critically low number, according to the conservation groups.

"The Utah prairie dog is running out of time," said Dr. Nicole Rosmarino, endangered species director for Forest Guardians. "The Fish and Wildlife Service needs to emerge from its torpor and upgrade urgently needed protections for this species on the brink."

All prairie dogs are considered keystone species, providing food and creating crucial habitat for many other native wildlife species. Eagles, hawks, falcons, snakes, badgers, coyotes and ferrets will eat prairie dogs.

Wildlife closely associated with prairie dogs are undergoing what scientists describe as "a wave of secondary extinctions" due to prairie dog declines.

More than 140 wildlife species have either been documented as dependent on prairie dog towns, or their biological requirements make it likely that they benefit from prairie dogs and the habitats they create.

"The American public has repeatedly expressed its strong support for protecting endangered species and the Endangered Species Act," said Jacob Smith, executive director of Center for Native Ecosystems. "The extinction of prairie dog species would be especially tragic because of their critical role in maintaining the ecosystems in which they live."

Conservationists Challenge Natomas Basin Development

They say development in the 53,000 acre basin will destroy some of the last remaining habitats for two threatened species – the Swainson’s hawk and the giant garter snake.

In a complaint filed March 23 with the Federal District Court in Sacramento, the groups allege that the 2003 Habitat Conservation Plan adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Natomas Basin violated the Endangered Species Act.

Under the act, any habitat destruction must be offset with adequately funded mitigation measures that prevent development from jeopardizing threatened species. The groups complain that the Habitat Conservation Plan does not contain adequate mitigation measures to protect the threatened species.

The coalition filing the complaint includes the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the Environmental Council of Sacramento, Friends of the Swainson's Hawk, the Planning and Conservation League (NWF’s California affiliate) and the Sierra Club.

"This Habitat Conservation Plan allows destruction of some of the last remaining habitats of threatened species without putting in place sufficient measures to offset the damage,” said NWF counsel and lead coalition attorney John Kostyack.

Habitat loss has reduced the population of the Swainson’s hawk in California to 10 percent of its historic level. The giant garter snake exists only in the Central Valley of California and was declared a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1993.

According to the complaint, the 2003 Habitat Conservation Plan suffers from the same flaws as its 1997 predecessor, struck down in 2000 by the court after a lawsuit from NWF and its partners.

The complaint contends that, as with the 1997 plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service has illegally failed to insist upon reliable mitigation and funding measures to offset the harm caused by development in the habitat of threatened species.

“After the court’s 2000 decision, we expected a good-faith effort from the Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a Habitat Conservation Plan that was substantially better than the 1997 version,” said Andy Sawyer, president of Environmental Council of Sacramento. "Unfortunately, what we got is a plan that was not fixed."

The agency had the opportunity and the benefit of full environmental review to fix the plan, Sawyer said. "Instead, they tinkered with legalities and put forward essentially the same inadequate mitigation program."

Brood X Cicadas to Emerge in May After 17 Years

"There will be some crop damage, especially to orchards, but we don't expect a disaster," said biologist Keith Clay, who recently received a three year, $300,000 National Science Foundation grant to study Brood X.

"Given that Brood X is not going to emerge for another 17 years, this opportunity represents a once in a researcher's lifetime opportunity to study the impacts of such an event," said Michael Bowers, program director in National Science Foundation's division of environmental biology, which funded the research.

"This is the first study to experimentally determine the impact of cicada emergence, adult movement and their impact on woody plants," Bowers said. "Cicadas are a major insect herbivore for which we have only limited information."

Scientists expect the insects to crawl out of the ground and begin the reproductive segment of their life cycle when soil temperatures reach 62 degrees Fahrenheit.

Contrary to what one might expect, the population of 17 year periodical cicadas does not cause much damage to trees and smaller plants by feeding on them. Many adult cicadas do not feed at all.

After more than 16 years of slowly sucking tree roots, Brood X cicadas arise from their subterranean chambers full of the energy they need to breed. The damage cicadas cause occurs when females use a special, razor-sharp appendage to cut open branches and twigs to insert their fertilized eggs.

"The cicadas do not harm evergreen trees or leafy, non-woody plants,” Clay said. “But isolated shrubs, broad-leafed trees, and trees with soft, woody branches are vulnerable. People who have just spent thousands of dollars on landscaping may want to consider throwing netting over the trees during the two to three week period when the adult cicadas are out."

Clay recommends concerned gardeners, vintners and farmers use netting with holes no greater than one-half inch across.

Brood X's population is densest in southern Indiana, Kentucky and southwestern Ohio, and there are pockets of the insects in Illinois, Michigan, Tennessee, New Jersey, Missouri, northern Georgia, New York’s Long Island, eastern Pennsylvania and the Baltimore-Washington, DC metropolitan area.

There is no set estimate on how many of the cicadas will appear in late May, but Clay said the number in Indiana alone could reach the trillions.

“Cicadas do not bite, and they do not attack people," Clay said. "They are not very active when the sun goes down, so the massive noise we will hear in the daytime will subside, allowing people to sleep."

EPA Considers Revising Fuel Economy Measurements

EPA fuel economy labels indicate projected annual fuel costs based upon EPA mileage figures.

According to Bluewater Network, actual fuel economy can be some 20 percent lower than what the EPA’s labels suggest.

“It is unlawful for corporations to mislead the public about their products, but thanks to the EPA, car owners are paying two to three hundred dollars more every year for gas than they thought they would,” said Bluewater Network Executive Director Russell Long. “We are glad the agency is finally addressing this problem.”

Bluewater Network’s petition, filed in June 2002, called on the agency to revise the 1985 test procedures and calculation methods it uses to determine its fuel economy value labels to more accurately reflect today’s driving conditions.

The organization says the EPA’s current procedures and methods are obsolete because they do not consider significant increases in urban congestion, higher average highway driving speeds, and the percentage of driving taking place in urban areas.

In its announcement, the EPA said its action will have no effect on the fuel economy standards now in place and administered by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration.

The nation’s overall fuel economy for model year 2002 was the lowest since 1980.

More information and instructions for comment on the EPA”s testing procedures can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/mpg.htm#regs.