said Secretary Deb Haaland. “By acknowledging and empowering Tribes as partners in co-stewardship of our country’s lands and waters, every American will benefit from strengthened management of our federal land and resources.”
Of course, federal authorities stay the same, that is, to consult and not go with what Tribes want. It seems to be a focus on the process (consultation) rather than the product (decisions that Tribes agree with). This sounds like a bit of an echo of ordinary public involvement. We can have a great process and not decide the way any particular group wants. But the term “co-management” to me implies more than “we listen to your opinion more carefully than other groups”. But if the Admin can still overrule Tribes, are they any more “empowered” than before an enhanced consultation process?
There’s also the scale thing. For example, when DOI had their public session on oil and gas regulations, that I covered here, Tribes and Native Alaskans said they were for “all of the above” and yet this did not seem to transfer directly to DOI policy. Perhaps the scale is the problem, and Tribes should be consulted on the overall decarbonization- climate- energy policy in its entirety. Because the solar-wind-minerals-uranium under all scenarios would occur on federal lands. To the extent that it does, maybe the USG should back up and consult on the broader-scale policy- both energy and climate. Perhaps have an elected Tribal representative in all White House climate discussions?
Anyway, here’s a story from “This is Reno” on Tribes suing the BLM:
Three Native American tribes filed this week a new lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management over Lithium Americas planned Thacker Pass lithium mine.
The lawsuit comes after federal Judge Miranda Du mostly ruled against the plaintiffs seeking to stop the project near the Nevada-Oregon border. It was filed Thursday by the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Burns Paiute Tribe and Summit Lake Paiute Tribe in Federal District Court.
The tribes are alleging BLM withheld information from the state “and lied about the extent of tribal consultation in order to secure legally required concurrence about historic properties” at Thacker Pass. They are also alleging BLM lied and misled the tribes about other aspects of the mining project.
“The new lawsuit is also strengthened by the addition of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, one of the Tribes that the BLM claims to have consulted with prior to issuing the [record of decision],” they said in a press statement. “Summit Lake and both other tribes the BLM claims to have consulted (the Winnemucca Indian Colony and Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe) have disputed BLM’s assertion that any consultation took place.”
The Winnemucca Indian Colony, they said, was unable to intervene in the case for not filing soon enough.
“When the decision was made public on the previous lawsuit last week, we said we would continue to advocate for our sacred site PeeHee Mu’Huh,” said Arlan Melendez, chair of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony. “It is also the very same place where our people were massacred (never laid to rest properly) by the U.S. Calvary. It’s a place where all Paiute and Shoshone people continue to pray, gather medicines and food, honor our non-human relatives, honor our water, honor our way of life, honor our ancestors.
“The Thacker Pass permitting process was not done correctly. BLM contends they have discretion to decide who to notify or consult with,” he added. “They only contacted 3 out of the 22 tribes who had significant ties to Thacker Pass.”
“Democrats and Republicans are both pro-development in this state and always have been,” Lokken said.
Some Democrats are more likely to be concerned about the environmental impact of mining and about ensuring that the state gets tax revenue from the industry, added Lokken, but development has ultimately won out.
“The party decided a long ago that this kind of development is fine,” he said.
Does anyone know the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law would be “President Biden’s” but the IRA isn’t ?
****************************
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2023 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service today announced it will offer $41 million through the 2023 Wood Innovations Grant and 2023 Community Wood Grant programs to spark innovation and create new markets for wood products and renewable wood energy.
“With the support of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, USDA is carrying out the Biden-Harris Administration’s mission to support rural, forest-dependent communities while fighting climate change and protecting our natural resources,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.
“These grant programs provide opportunities for communities and businesses to develop innovative uses and markets for wood, a renewable and economical resource,” said Forest Service Chief Randy Moore. “Previous Wood Innovations Grants are making a difference across the country, and we are pleased to continue supporting wood use ingenuity that helps our communities and forests.”
The application deadline for both grant programs is Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 5 p.m. local time. Applications may be submitted via email to the Forest Service Regional Wood Innovations coordinator listed in the application instructions.
Not only are these grants helping support local economies by expanding the potential of wood products and wood energy, they are also helping address critical issues like climate change. By finding new uses and expanding current uses for wood products and energy made from materials removed from unhealthy, overgrown forests, we can restore forests to health, reduce wildfire risk, fight climate change and sustain local economies.
The Wood Innovations Grant Program makes funding available to expand traditional wood use projects, advance wood energy markets, and promote wood use in commercial building construction. This Request for Proposals focuses on the program’s market development goals to reduce hazardous fuels and improve forest health on national forests and other forest lands, reduce the costs of forest management, and promote economically strong and environmentally healthy communities.
Eligible project examples include:
Architectural and engineering designs, cost analyses, and permitting to secure financing for commercial wood construction or wood energy projects development.
Establishing or increasing wood products manufacturing to support forest restoration.
Showcasing environmental and economic benefits of wood as a sustainable commercial building material to encourage growth in the industry.
Establishing statewide wood use teams or wood energy teams.
Developing wood energy projects that use residues from wood products or woody biomass.
Developing commercial woody biomass and wood product industrial parks.
Overcoming market barriers to stimulate wood energy expansion.
Purchasing wood processing equipment to create markets supporting forest management.
The Community Wood Grant Program funds shovel-ready projects to install thermally led community wood energy systems or build innovative wood product facilities to support healthy forests and stimulate local economies by expanding renewable wood energy and innovative wood products manufacturing capacity.
Eligible project examples include:
Community wood heating, cooling, or electricity systems that replace fossil fuels.
Purchase and installation of manufacturing equipment at a mass timber production facility.
Expanding sawmills with innovative technologies, cost cutting measures and higher value production lines.
Equipment purchase and installation at new facilities producing forest products biofuels.
To apply for either grant, applicants must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM). Applications should show a clear benefit to underserved or historically marginalized people, communities, and the forests they value. For-profit entities, state and local governments, Indian Tribes, school districts, non-profit organizations, higher education institutions, public utilities, and fire and conservation districts are eligible to apply.
Since 2015, the Community Wood Grant and Wood Innovation Grant programs have provided more than $93 million to 381 recipients to support wood products and wood energy projects.
State Route 293, seen on April 27, 2021, is a lightly-trafficked one-lane road that crosses U.S. 95 and leads from Orovada to Thacker Pass on the other side of the valley. (David Calvert/The Nevada Independent)
Here’s one of those blanket statements being made that sound vaguely plausible at some scale in this recent article in Discover, called “Debunking Climate Myths”. (Personally if I never heard the word “debunking” again in this lifetime, I would be quite happy.)
And here we go.. how would “rewilding” actually work to reduce carbon emissions, or perhaps it’s adaptation, or a “natural climate solution”? So what is the role of “unnatural climate solutions”? It seems that in physical world, as opposed to word world, there is some tension between rewilding and climate mitigation. And while folks can write they want about it in various media outlets.. it’s at the local level where the renewable rubber meets the biodiversity/rewild road, and where, according to the IUCN, indigenous and local rights are to be protected.
In that light, let’s go to an interesting piece today from the Nevada Independent via the Center for Western Priorities.. I think it’s a really good detailed piece, with lots of legal stuff. It’s one of those examples of projects where people honestly disagree, and the way it goes into court it makes it sound like “the BLM did it wrong” as if there were a way they could have analyzed it that would be.. right.. and come to the “wrong” conclusion.
The interpretation of a 150-year-old mining law could be a part of whether a U.S. District Court judge upholds the federal government’s approval of a massive lithium mine — a project that has faced challenges from a local rancher, environmental groups and Native American tribes.
In legal briefs over the past two years, the mine’s opponents have challenged federal permitting of the planned Thacker Pass mine north of Winnemucca. Federal land managers, they argued, fast-tracked the project and did not adequately consider a number of issues in its environmental review — the mine’s footprint on wildlife habitat, groundwater, air quality and Indigenous sites.
On Thursday, the project’s opponents had their first opportunity to fully lay out the merits of their case challenging the mine’s federal environmental review. Yet much of the arguments centered around a broader question that has wide-ranging implications for mines across the West: What is the federal government’s proper role when approving and regulating mines on public land?
Policymakers from across the state, and the country, have pushed for developing Thacker Pass, touted as the largest known lithium source in the United States, arguing that it is needed to help fuel an economy less reliant on fossil fuels and more on lithium-ion batteries. Although the plan was approved at the end of the Trump administration, the Biden White House has continued to focus on procuring a domestic supply of “critical minerals,” and has defended the mine in court. …
Debate over the Thacker Pass mine has become a focal point in a national conversation about how the administration should balance sometimes competing priorities — bolstering the supply chain for an energy transition away from fossil fuels, protecting biodiversity and advocating for environmental justice.
….
Plaintiffs in the case have challenged the mine on several other grounds, alleging that federal land managers did not adequately consider air quality standards, groundwater concerns or fully evaluate the potential impact on wildlife, such as Greater sage-grouse and pronghorn antelope.
On Thursday, attorneys for the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony and the Burns Paiute Tribe argued that federal land managers did not conduct government-to-government consultation with them, when in fact they had a responsibility to do so. In the environmental review process, federal land managers did consult with three tribal governments, relying on geographic proximity, affirmative expressions of interest and historic ties to the area as factors for guiding its consultation plans.
But Rick Eichstaedt, an attorney for the Burns Paiute Tribe, said the federal government should have broadened its reach by consulting the Burns Paiute Tribe in Oregon and the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony — and giving more consideration to how tribal nations currently view the land.
“Tribes still exist,” he said. “And they care about this area. That’s why we’re here.”
Anyway, I thought it was an informative article on a very complex issue.
This proposed bill language of the current bill would affect the FS and BLM with regard to certain projects (not of the veg management persuasion). The link takes you to the full bill, the the section by section, and a summary of the changes.
**************
Sidenote: The permitting reform discourse, as opposed to the permitting reform bill. As Marcela Mulholland of Data for Progress pointed out at the Breakthrough Institute conference that I posted about here, the (at least “progressive”) discourse around permitting reform is not very productive. It’s like the concept itself is wrong (everything is currently perfect), which seems kind of irrational. What human, let alone government, activity, can’t be improved? Why is the concept, as opposed to the reality, such a flashpoint? A person, apparently on the New York State Climate Action Council, and I had a discussion on Twitter that reflects this.. I actually thought it was kind of funny.
Indeed, the arguments that the progressives make against carbon pricing are exactly why they should have supported Manchin’s permitting reforms. Blocking fossil fuel projects makes it more costly to deliver energy with existing fossil fuels. In effect, it creates a kind of carbon price, just one that’s haphazardly applied, usually extremely high, and where the revenues accrue to fossil fuel producers instead of the government. At the end of the day, low-income households’ energy bills go up.
*****************************************
But let’s move on to what’s specifically in the bill.
Projects are defined as “those projects for the construction of infrastructure to develop, produce, generate, store, transport, or distribute energy; to capture, remove, transport, or store carbon dioxide; or to mine, extract, beneficiate, or
process minerals which also require the preparation of an environmental document under the NEPA and an agency authorization, such as a permit, license or other approval.
It seems to me as if it’s mostly speeding up things (documents and disagreements and litigation) that can otherwise languish (and don’t we know it…). That’s what it says in the summary.
WHAT THE BILL DOES: Accelerate, not bypass. The bill will accelerate permitting of all types of American energy and mineral infrastructure needed to achieve energy security and climate objectives, without bypassing environmental laws or community input.
Here was the one I thought will be interesting to observe (if this passes):
Sec. xx15. Litigation Transparency
Topline Summary:
• Requires public reporting and a public comment opportunity on consent decrees and settlement agreements seeking to compel agency action affecting energy and natural resources projects.
Detailed Summary:
• Subsection (a) defines civil actions, consent decrees, and settlement agreements covered under this section.
• Subsection (b) requires that agencies publish online the notice of intent to sue and the complaint in a covered civil action not later than 15 days after receiving service. The subsection also requires agencies seeking to enter into a covered consent decree or settlement to publish online the proposed consent decree or settlement and provide an opportunity for public comment not later than 30 days before filing the consent decree or settlement with a court.
• Subsection (c) requires an agency to consider public comments received on a proposed consent decree or settlement agreement under subsection (b) and authorizes agencies to withdraw or withhold consent if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the agency’s consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with any provision of law.
What do you all think about this, and about other parts of the bill?
I’d like to give a special shout-out to some BLM employees today, who traditionally have labored in relative obscurity.
There have been quite a few news stories saying they “did not look at” this or that, based on plaintiffs’ assertions. Then because it’s in litigation, we never get to hear the BLM side.. unless we dig into some relatively obscure “response to comments” document. So this post will be successful if the next time you read a news story that says “BLM’s NEPA did not…”, you consider the fact that well.. maybe.. they actually did.
What reminded me of this was today’s story about the results of some (in this case, sue-and-settle) litigation against oil and gas leasing in California. As per this Reuters story..
The 2019 lawsuit was filed in California federal court by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club, who were later joined by Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. It claimed the federal plan to move forward with development ignored the potential harm from oil and gas extraction on groundwater, the climate and seismic activity.
And the solution…
A federal plan to lease over 725,000 acres of Central California land for fracking and oil drilling has been blocked after a federal judge approved a settlement brokered between the Biden administration and environmental groups that sued over the plan The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management agreed in the deal approved Tuesday to take a fresh look at the environmental impacts of the leasing plan, which was approved by the Trump administration in 2019.
is…more analysis. From the settlement, it looks like they need to do an SEIS with more alternatives (?). Which isn’t exactly saying their analysis of the alternatives was inadequate. But maybe legal folks will understand what this settlement says.
Now if you’ve been following these stories (there are many across the west, and they all say the same thing, “BLM did not consider…” ), you might wonder “what about those BLM folks.. why can’t they do it right? After all, NEPA is a procedural statute, so conceivably even if the BLM said “this project will extinguish life on earth as we know it” the project could go ahead. Well maybe that’s a bit of an overstatement, but you see my point.
My own experience with BLM NEPA folks and solicitors was that they did good work. Take a look at the Central Coast RMP Amendment’s pretty overwhelmingly complete documentation here.
There are 18,229 active oil and gas wells in the 11 counties within the boundaries of the BLM Central Coast Field Office: 110 or roughly 0.6 percent are located on Federal mineral estate. Completion of this proposed RMPA/Final EIS will allow the BLM to resume oil and gas leasing within the planning area, which could result in development of up to 37 new oil and gas wells during the next 20 years, as described in the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario.
It also sounds from the news story (plaintiffs’ claims quoted) as if the problem were analyzing impacts. Without looking at the document, did the BLM actually “ignore” the impacts on groundwater, the climate, and seismic activity? Even back in my day, the BLM did analyze climate impacts, so I looked into this.
It was easy to find the response to comments for the Sierra Club and CBD on page I410:
Sections 3.6 and 4.6 (Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of the RMPA/EIS provide the regulatory framework, baseline conditions, and provides an assessment of impacts to GHG emissions (a proxy for impacts to climate change) from activities allowed under the RMPA alternatives. The primary GHG impacts that can be reasonably expected to occur are emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and from releases of CO2 and methane due to oil and gas development and production. Discussions of impacts to other resources affected by climate change appear in the respective sections in Chapter 4 of the Draft RMPA/EIS. As discussed in the assumptions presented in Section 4.6, all activities must comply with applicable laws and regulations and may be subject to review for certain types of GHG emissions by the local air permitting authority. Therefore, utilizing this as a foundation for the analysis presented in Section 4.6, the RMPA/EIS considers current information regarding climate change.
Section 1.2.2 (Planning Approach) of the RMPA/EIS explains that oil and gas leasing and development on Federal mineral estate requires multiple stages of BLM Central Coast Oil and Gas Leasing and Development Appendix I. Comments and Responses to Comments May 2019 I-411 Proposed RMPA/Final EIS environmental analysis and authorization. Environmental review under NEPA is required at each phase. Therefore, future projects would also conduct specific project-level assessments of potential impacts to air, water, induced seismicity and human health; and may conduct Health Impact Assessments. Sections 4.4 (Hazardous Materials and Public Safety), 4.3 (Geology), 4.5 (Air Quality and Atmospheric Conditions), 4.7 (Groundwater Resources), and 4.8 (Surface Water Resources) of the RMPA/EIS provide a detailed analysis of the potential impacts to these resources under the RMPA alternatives.
Regardless of what they analyzed and how, it sounds as if the BLM folks need to produce more alternatives and reanalyze. Which can be somewhat demoralizing when you do good work; I’ve been there. And then you reanalyze, and the court finds something else not quite right in the new analysis.
I’m not sure that that’s the case here, but if you note in the photo, if looks like this EIS is in response to a court order to give more detail on well stimulation techniques, which they did. And so it goes.
Anyway, here’s a great big shout-out to the BLM folks who do NEPA and analysis work; all of you across the country! Your work is appreciated..
As part of this update, the BLM is considering adding more states, adjusting exclusion criteria and seeking to identify new or expanded areas to prioritize solar deployment.
it should be interesting to watch how 30×30, EJ and Tribal co-management goals are woven together by the BLM in this decision.
“This Administration is committed to expanding clean energy development to address climate change, enhance America’s energy security and provide for good-paying union jobs,” said Secretary Haaland. “Our review of these proposed projects in Arizona, and a new analysis of the role public lands can play in furthering solar energy production, will help ensure we keep the momentum going to build a clean energy future, lower costs for families and create robust conservation outcomes on the nation’s lands and waters.”
“We take seriously our responsibility to manage the nation’s public lands responsibly and with an eye toward the increasing impacts of the climate crisis. The power and potential of the clean energy future is an undeniable and critical part of that work,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Daniel-Davis. “The Bureau of Land Management is working diligently to ensure that its processes and pace maintain the momentum we are seeing from industry.”
In 2012, the BLM and the Department of Energy issued a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in six southwestern states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The 2012 Solar PEIS identified areas with high solar potential and low resource conflicts in order to guide responsible solar development and provide certainty to developers. A decade later, in light of improved technology, new transmission and ambitious clean energy goals, the BLM is updating the 2012 Solar PEIS. As part of this update, the BLM is considering adding more states, adjusting exclusion criteria and seeking to identify new or expanded areas to prioritize solar deployment.
A notice to update the BLM’s 2012 Solar Programmatic EIS will be published in the Federal Register this week. This will begin a 60-day public comment period, with interested stakeholders invited to submit written feedback or participate in one of many upcoming in-person and virtual public scoping meetings. Following the public scoping period, the BLM will develop a draft programmatic environmental impact statement for public review and comment.
Secretary Haaland also celebrated initial reviews for new, major solar projects proposed on public lands in Arizona. First, the scoping meetings will soon be announced for environmental analysis of the proposed Jove solar project, which would produce up to 600 megawatts of utility-scale renewable energy from solar photovoltaic modules on 3,495 acres of public land located in southeastern La Paz County. Second, there will be a two-year segregation of more than 4,400 acres of public land associated with two proposed utility-scale solar energy projects. The segregation action supports review of the proposed 250 megawatts Pinyon Solar project in Maricopa County, and the proposed 300 megawatts Elisabeth Solar project in Yuma County.
During the trip, the leaders also announced that the BLM is issuing updated guidance to improve consistency in processing rights-of-way for utility-scale solar projects under the variance process established by BLM’s 2012 Western Solar Plan, which is used for solar projects outside of Solar Energy Zones.
From Marcela Mulholland’s presentation at the Ecomodernism 2022 conference
Last month, I attended a Breakthrough Institute conference in Middleburg, Virginia. You may have heard of BTI, they promote “ecomodernism.” More on some of their ideas later.
What I like about them is that they are fans of technical solutions to environmental problems- I don’t always agree with them, but they have interesting and unique albeit Coastal, views of the world. Plus, where else can you be at a conference with people from the fusion community, as in energy, not dining. And they gave me a geographic diversity scholarship to attend, as I am neither from a Coast, nor a member of any elite.
Anyway, permitting reform was on their agenda. “Permitting reform” is a current term used to talk about removing unnecessary obstacles to building needed infrastructure. The difficulty, as we know, is agreeing on what is “unnecessary” and what is “needed.”
It was fascinating to see the perspectives of people way outside our world. Below is the information about this session and here is a link to the video.
As the nation’s halting attempts to build high-speed rail, nuclear power plants, high-voltage transmission lines, and solar and wind farms reveal, the obstacles to decarbonization stem less from the availability of low-carbon technology than from the capacity for siting, permitting, and building the necessary infrastructure. High-level proposals to address this problem have come from “supply-side progressivism,” “state-capacity libertarianism,” neoliberalism, and beyond. This panel will feature a variety of ideological perspectives on the policy and coalitional imperatives to be sorted out before any such supply-side agenda can be effectively pursued.
Featuring:
Eli Dourado, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Growth and Opportunity, Utah State University
Marcela Mulholland, Political Director, Data for Progress
Jeremiah Johnson, Policy Director, The Neoliberal Project
Jared DeWese, Deputy Director for Communications, Third Way Energy
From the Forest Service historical NEPA perspective, it was fascinating to listen to speakers talk about NEPA. Some of Eli Dourado’s comments (the libertarian), even reminded me of Sally Fairfax’s article in Science in 1978. He suggested , developing more substantive environmental statutes and reducing the emphasis on NEPA. He also suggested getting rid of NEPA but he is a libertarian..
However, as we know ESA can also be used to slow down or stop projects, so I don’t think it’s that simple.
I thought the most interesting talk was given by Marcela Mulholland, the Political Director of Data for Progress, a progressive polling group.
Her presentation (20:10 ) was fun..
Here she talks some (other) progressives’ views (48:48) “more staffing, no other changes are necessary,” and (51:30) changing agency culture. I think she has a point but that is indeed difficult.
1:04 and on .. there’s a discussion how to get community input without slowing things down too much.
And in the Q&A, there’s even a comment about NEPA being a “decision-making tool”, which may remind FS folks of the Decision Protocol and other efforts. I suggested that policy solutions involve agency NEPA practitioners as sources of information..
As a result, attendees asked for a summary of what we have learned. I think “there’s too much!” say the results of the EADM workshops, and “there’s too little”.. where out there might be a 20 page history of agency efforts, at least from Process Predicament on, what was tried and how it worked. So I am stuck and would like to respond to his question. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Wildlife crossings, such as this one under U.S. Route 285 near Buena Vista, Colorado, provide safe passage for migrating elk and other animals. Matt Staver/Getty Images
The Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Office is considering an amendment to oil and gas program decisions in existing BLM Colorado resource management plans to promote the conservation of big game corridors and other important big game habitats on BLM-administered land and minerals in Colorado. The scoping period ended September 2. This press release includes a link to the official website. Here is the project description:
Description: The BLM will propose and analyze, with the best available scientific methods and information, a statewide amendment to existing BLM Colorado land use plans to evaluate alternatives for planning-scale oil and gas management prescriptions for the conservation of important big game habitat. The BLM will consider whether to incorporate new or changed oil and gas management decisions in existing land use plans, such as limits on high-density development, including facility and route density limitations, and other lease stipulations that would incorporate conservation measures for important big game habitat areas in Colorado.
This is in response to the 2018 USDI Secretarial Order No. 3362, “Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors,” and the release of the state of Colorado’s Big Game Policy Report, which recommended the bureau actually undertake this amendment to strengthen oil and gas lease stipulations consistent with new wildlife rules.
This sounds like good planning, which should be expanded to include:
The Forest Service. Especially if you are talking about connectivity, it does little good if it runs into a “wall” created by management of other ownerships. How is the Forest Service going to be involved in this? (Especially where BLM administers leases on national forests.)
Other energy. We have talked about the need to do this kind of thing for renewable energy proposals, and why shouldn’t that be integrated with this kind of planning effort for oil and gas?
Other species. Just because big game species have more lobbying power doesn’t mean such efforts should ignore the same kinds of connectivity issues for other species like sage-grouse and large carnivores. Including areas used by many species should be a goal.
Other states. The Order calls for collaboration with states, and it looks like Colorado has taken the initiative here, but that doesn’t mean the BLM couldn’t be promoting this elsewhere, or that it is precluded from initiating an effort that would include state participation.
Diablo Canyon, California’s last operational nuclear plant, is due to be shut down in 2024. PHOTO: GEORGE ROSE/GETTY IMAGES This was the original photo that went with Ted’s op-ed in February. apparently the State decided to keep it open for five more years.
I’ve been thinking about alignment lately. I’ll tell you three stories, then point you to an op-ed, and ask you for examples where you think alignment needs to be fostered, as well as ways to create alignment. I know some “old Forest Service” types that could produce alignment, perhaps that was a different cultural moment, or they had skills that could still be useful?
(1) First, when I was trying to get input from Forest Service research silviculturists for our MOG letter, I was told (as were others) that they weren’t allowed to talk about it. So I asked Jamie Barbour and he said that wasn’t the case. All the National Forest System silviculture folks returned my calls and emails, and answered my questions. The Forest Service didn’t know there was a problem with alignment until someone from outside told them. How else would they know? I’m expecting by the next round of comments on MOG, this will be cleared up.
Intra-organizational alignment. In a large organization, tough to achieve and keep going.
(2) Second, I have a friend in a mountainous subdivision of Denver, who is working wholeheartedly on wildfire mitigation. I could give many examples, but here’s one. She’s trying to get infrared cameras placed on mountaintops.. but some telecom group wanted to charge $30K or so a month to put it there. Other telecom companies would do it as a public service, but perhaps not in the best locations. If it were really important to do whatever to stop fires in communities.. people would be looking at this. Maybe there are but we don’t know. So many moving parts, so many responsibilities so much unclear.
Alignment among levels of different government and other authorities.. perhaps the most difficult kind of alignment to achieve. Often it’s not really clear who is in charge of what, and it’s not clear that anyone is looking at the big picture. And at the same time, looking at the mis-alignments at the local level where the proverbial fire hits the stucco. I hope that the Wildfire Commission might help with multi-level alignment, but I wonder whether they will solicit input on “why it’s hard to get mitigation done” from all the relevant people and institutions at the local levels.
(3) Third is the obvious challenge of “more energy infrastructure ASAP” versus current permitting procedures. Some groups seem to feel like the current situation cannot be changed in any way or “the nations fundamental environmental laws will be undermined.” Some groups were pushing President Biden to declare a “climate emergency”. It seems logical, perhaps, then that emergency CEQ and agency NEPA provisions could be invoked for a very wide range of mitigation and adaptation projects- including ones that would be off-limits if the groups promoting “no cutting of 80 year old trees” win out. It seems like a major misalignment to me. Because nowadays everything can be linked in some way to climate change mitigation or adaptation.
But back to the renewable build out vs. permitting procedures as sacred text as described by Ted Nordhaus of The Breakthrough Institute in this Wall Street Journal op-ed.
In Nevada’s Black Rock Desert, local environmentalists and devotees of the Burning Man festival are using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to oppose a geothermal energy plant. Further south, the Sierra Club has joined with all-terrain vehicle enthusiasts to stop development of what would be the nation’s largest solar farm, which it says threatens endangered tortoises. Along the Atlantic seaboard, plans for major offshore wind farms have been hogtied by provisions of the Jones Act, an obscure law that requires maritime cargo to be transported exclusively by U.S.-flagged ships when it is shipped between domestic ports. It is an obstacle that may ultimately prove beside the point because proposals to develop wind energy in American coastal regions have also faced a constant barrage of NEPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) lawsuits designed to stop them.
The problem isn’t limited to renewable energy. In California, environmentalists have used a state law designed to protect fish eggs as a pretext to close the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, the state’s largest source of clean energy, while the California Environmental Quality Act has hobbled efforts to build both high-speed rail and high-voltage transmission lines that the state is counting on to meet its climate commitments. In Washington, D.C., meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission peremptorily rejected last month the application of the first advanced nuclear reactor developer to seek a license before the commission, to cheers from leading environmental groups.
Across the country, foundational laws established in the 1960s and 70s to protect the environment are today a major obstacle to efforts to build the infrastructure and energy systems that we need to safeguard public health and save the climate. Though the Biden administration and Democrats currently propose to spend close to a trillion dollars on low-carbon infrastructure and technology, there is little reason to believe the U.S. is capable of building any of it in a timely or cost-effective way.
I particularly liked the ATVs and Sierra Club aligned. And doesn’t it make you wonder where all the money will actually go? Check the whole op-ed out, I don’t think it’s paywalled.
Will there be environmental costs to clearing away the detritus of decades of environmental regulatory policies? Without question. Some ill-conceived projects will get the green light, and those projects may have a negative impact on local environments. But we have a range of other legal tools to protect our most valuable environmental resources, from federal authority to protect public lands to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.
The U.S. can no longer continue to neglect its compounding infrastructure and clean-energy needs. We aren’t going to regulate our way to a thriving low-carbon economy and a more stable climate. America needs to get back to building again.
I was reminded of Sally Fairfax’s article in 1978
Sally K. Fairfax, “A Disaster in the Environmental Movement,” 199 Science743 (17 Feb.1978)
Unfortunately I can’t get through the paywalls ($30 to Science and it’s not available to free users of JStor) to clip out pieces of the paper, but as I recall, her argument was that NEPA focused environmental groups on procedural rather than substantive statutes. Nevertheless, I would say to Nordhaus that ESA is a procedural statute like CWA and CAA. Maybe there’s a legal reason those are less often used.
Wildlife biologist Mike Lockhart admires a golden eagle after trapping, sampling and fitting the raptor with a GPS device in June 2022. (Dustin Bleizeffer/WyoFile)
For years we have been told that oil and gas drilling on federal lands is bad because:
1*Federal land is abused for the profits of a few. (corporate profits)
2* Pristine landscapes are industrialized
3* Placement of infrastructure interferes with recreation
4* Bad for wildlife,
5* Roads bad for water quality, also increase human activity
6* Other environmental concerns
7*Methane leakage, chemicals onsite, and finally
8*Usage of oil and gas (not considering substitution from elsewhere)
*******************
If you’ve ever been to a wind installation (whose footprint is much greater and, with proposed solar, is going to be gigantic), you’ll know where I’m going with this.
Some will argue that sacrificing concerns 1-6 are necessary for a low-carbon future. On the other hand, through time, there will be other choices (including in the new IRA) for low-carbon energy such as the nuclear plant being developed in Kemmerer, Wyoming that will use former coal plant workers and existing powerlines.
Anyway, I’m bringing your attention to three stories about this, two current stories one from Wyofile, one from the AP and one from 2019 from the Hill.
The Wyofile story is an interview with a retired USFWS wildlife biologist now doing resarch for USGS and Conservation Science Global.
The expansion, which energy experts believe may even accelerate further under the Inflation Reduction Act, could pose a serious threat to eagles and other wildlife in certain areas without field-data-driven information to guide avoidance and mitigation strategies, according to Lockhart. …..
This is probably one of the best places, that I know of anyway, for golden eagles in North America,” Lockhart said. “I am a big wind energy advocate and definitely a green energy supporter. But we can’t devastate one really critically important resource for another.”
Maestro has yet to file an official permitting request with the BLM and other permitting authorities. The company didn’t respond to WyoFile inquiries. To move forward, the BLM, which manages more than 80% of the project area, must conduct a full National Environmental Policy Act analysis with public comment.
The Maestro project isn’t the only wind proposal that worries Lockhart.
“I’m equally concerned about the ones that might impact breeding birds and kind of fill in those gaps between the existing wind [energy facilities],” he said.
Another field scientist concerned about modeling over field data (see, it’s not just me).
But Lockhart worries that the vital data from field research is emerging slower than encroaching wind turbines in southern and south-central Wyoming. Federal wildlife managers that can determine where and how wind energy facilities are configured to avoid threatening eagle populations are relying too much on modeling to fill in gaps between actual data, he claims.
“The data is just inadequate for making these [permitting] decisions,” Lockhart said…
Then there are cumulative impacts:
Of particular concern, he said, are proposed wind energy projects that will essentially fill in yet-to-be industrialized areas, such as the Maestro wind energy project in the Shirley Basin. Carlsbad, California-based Maestro Wind LLC proposes to construct up to 327 wind turbines spanning nearly 99,000 acres that straddle Highway 77 here. The project area essentially encompasses the heart of the Shirley Basin’s eagle habitat, according to Lockhart.
Wind energy developers, in the pre-construction federal and state permitting process, typically borrow from existing data on local nesting sites and eagle populations and hire consultants to conduct new surveys in the field. But that information isn’t typically compiled in a way that allows for a comprehensive count or region-wide database that could be used to analyze potential cumulative impacts.
Although the Wyoming Game and Fish Department reviews and comments on wind energy proposals in federal permitting, it doesn’t conduct comprehensive eagle field surveys and mostly defers to federal wildlife authorities, according to Public Information Officer Sara DiRienzo.
“There is a growing concern especially with raptors, such as the golden eagle or the ferruginous hawk, that there may be population impacts, especially when you look at locations that have multiple wind farms,” DiRienzo said. “Understanding the cumulative effects is still ongoing and not conclusive at this time.”
In the mid 90’s there were many Biodiversity workshops, and so I spent much time listening to presentations about endangered birds of various kinds (think owls and murrelets). I had to wonder whether populations go down partially because wildife biologists conduct activities that look like harassment, calling, baiting, trapping and so on. Maybe there are studies on this.
The AP (Matthew Brown) has a lengthy story about eagles and windfarms. I found it in the Colorado Sun. Hopefully it’s not paywalled or is available elsewhere.
The rush to build wind farms to combat climate change is colliding with preservation of one of the U.S. West’s most spectacular predators — the golden eagle — as the species teeters on the edge of decline…
Federal officials won’t divulge how many eagles are reported killed by wind farms, saying it’s sensitive law enforcement information. The recent criminal prosecution of a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, one of the largest U.S. renewable energy providers, offered a glimpse into the problem’s scope.
The company pleaded guilty to three counts of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and was ordered to pay more than $8 million in fines and restitution after killing at least 150 eagles — including more than 100 goldens at wind farms in Wyoming, California, New Mexico, North Dakota, Colorado, Michigan, Arizona and Illinois.
Government officials said the mortality was likely higher because some turbines killed multiple eagles and carcasses are not always found.
Prosecutors said the company’s failure to take steps to protect eagles or to obtain permits to kill the birds gave it an advantage over competitors that did take such steps — even as NextEra and affiliates received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal tax credits for wind power.
The company remained defiant after the plea deal: NextEra President Rebecca Kujawa said bird collisions with turbines were unavoidable accidents that should not be criminalized.
Utilities Duke Energy and PacifiCorp previously pleaded guilty to similar charges in Wyoming. North Carolina-based Duke Energy was sentenced in 2013 to $1 million in fines and restitution and five years probation following deaths of 14 golden eagles and 149 other birds at two of the company’s wind projects.
We don’t have to go too far back in time, though, to get a different take. From a news piece on The Hill.
Shawn Smallwood, a California ornithologist, told PolitiFact that about 100 eagles die each year due to impacts with wind turbines…
In truth, wind turbine collisions comprise a fraction of human-caused eagle losses,” Obama-era U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe wrote in 2016. “Most result from intentional and accidental poisoning and purposeful shooting. The majority of non-intentional loss occurs when eagles collide with cars or ingest lead shot or bullet fragments in remains and gut piles left by hunters. Others collide with or are electrocuted on power lines.”
I think Ashe’s argument is interesting. If x, y and z contribute to decline of a species, when do we try to shut down x, y, and z, and when do we determine that if the majority of the loss is due to x and y, we aren’t concerned about z. Is the way we think about this inconsistent?
Finally, these articles are about collisions. Noise may also interfere with a variety of bird activities. For example, the highly political dramatized sage grouse..from a BLM document:
Recent research has demonstrated that noise from natural gas development negatively impacts sagegrouse abundance, stress levels and behaviors (Blickley et al. 2012; Blickley & Patricelli 2012; Blickley et al. In review). Other types of anthropogenic noise sources (e.g. infrastructure from oil, geothermal, mining and wind development, off-road vehicles, highways and urbanization) are similar to gas-development noise and thus the response by sage-grouse is likely to be similar. These resultssuggest that effective management of the natural soundscape is critical to the conservation and protection of sage-grouse.
