Sharon

More on the North Big Bear Landscape Restoration Project and Hanson’s Views

by

Thanks to Jon for another excellent litigation round-up on Friday!

Both Larry and I are familiar with the San Bernardino National Forest. Both of us were dubious as to Hanson’s claim this project involves fuel treatment “in the remote wildlands” . So I looked up a map for the project.

From

From this map, you can see the miles from the project to WUI areas. But if you aren’t aware of the built environment around Big Bear Lake, here is a Google map

The Decision Notice had some nice descriptive photos, so here they are:

 

 

When I’m working on MOG and hear “leaving things alone is best for carbon” I think of places near my house that look something like the next two photos.

Personally, I’d like Mr/Ms Old Growth Jeffrey to survive a fire.

The project’s around 12K acres of treatment and has a 49 page EA.  The separate response to comments is 21 pages; it has many specific answers to various scientific studies submitted in the comments. This project also has its own fairly extensive monitoring plan.

Here’s what Hanson says in an LA TV news story.

According to the lawsuit, the last time the San Bernardino National Forest conducted a similar restoration project was in the early 2000s, prior to the devastating Grass Valley Fire of 2007 that burned 199 homes.

Hanson said such an approach makes homeowners in the wildlands subject to even greater fire risk. He said the Forest Service should instead focus on making 100-foot perimeters of defensible space around homes in the forest.

“When they remove a lot of trees it actually makes the fire burn faster through those areas, and that often times is toward towns,” Hanson said.

I think this is something different from usual, a bit of an escalation,  from “fuel treatments don’t work” to “sure less fuels mean big trees don’t die, but the fire itself can move along the ground faster and go toward towns.”  That’s not fire suppression folks’ experience but…the FS couldn’t speak to reporters due to litigation.   So the reporter had to poke through the documents. Which is kind of a painful way to get info for someone on the clock.

Seems like we as a community (at least those of us who support fuel treatments) should be able to do better in terms of being able to talk to reporters.  In the old timber wars days, reporters could always call AFRC- but when there’s no timber, now there’s no one for reporters to call.   Perhaps something to work on.  People Living With Wildfire? Wildfire Adaptation Network?.. Conservationists for Wildfire Adaptation? No, it needs a good acronym.

 

Friday Roundup: Renewable Resistance, European Wolf History and King Cove Update

by

Lava Ridge Wind Project Extended Post- DEIS and Comment Period into Next Administration

It seems like the Biden Admin is doubling down on efforts by their conservation friends (e-bikes, Monumentizing, conservation leasing), and possibly throwing their renewable friends under the bus.
People didn’t want Lava Ridge, but then local people seldom want big wind projects. So I wonder what the political calculus was about this one? If someone knows the inside scoop, please share at my email on the donate widget to the right. Privacy provided.

Still No Wolves For You, And Some Wolf History

Colorado Sun article. There was an initiative put on the state ballot to reintroduce wolves, even though they were moving down on their own from Wyoming.  Colorado Parks and Wildlife seems to have done an excellent job of listening to people about this and coming up with a plan.

Well worth a read.

One thing that caught my eye was this:

Lambert credits the negative perception of wolves to a much older source: the colonization of North America.

“When white, colonizing Europeans hit North America, they were kind of shocked to encounter animals that they had completely extirpated in Western Europe,” she said.

One thing I have found is that not many people are familiar with European history at the points when people left for what is now the US. If we took the timing of Spanish colonists in Santa Fe (since the British weren’t here in the west at that time) as 1610, well.. here’s what Wikipedia has to say about wolves in Western Europe (check out the decline).

If we take Spain specifically, here is a journal article that says:

Wolf records were widely distributed in mid-19th century Spain, being present in all its mainland provinces. The probability of occurrence was positively associated with landscape roughness and negatively with human population density and the landscape suitability for agriculture.

Perhaps the story is simpler. Wolves ate livestock there and were killed.  People moved to North America, where wolves ate livestock and people killed them. Also there’s the issue of wolves killing people, which Wikipedia also has an entry on.  My point is not that wolves are currently killing people here in the US; my point is that it was not unreasonable for people from countries where wolves-killing-people happened at times that wolves-killing-people was going on, to be afraid of wolves-killing-people.  For example, if you migrated to the US from India in the 1800’s, at least from the provinces mentioned below, it would seem fairly reasonable.

Records of wolf attacks in India began to be kept during the British colonial administration in the 19th century.[33] In 1875, more people were killed by wolves than tigers, with the worst affected areas being the North West Provinces and Bihar. In the former area, 721 people were killed by wolves in 1876, while in Bihar, the majority of the 185 recorded deaths at the time occurred mostly in the Patna and Bghalpur Divisions.[34

There’s a Denver Post story with more interesting details about the other States’ willingness or not to give up their wolves. For example,

Montana officials, too, are still considering Colorado’s request, said Brian Wakeling, game management bureau chief at Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The state’s Fish and Wildlife Commission would make the final decision on whether to send wolves to Colorado.

Under state law, Montana wildlife officials would have to complete an environmental assessment before the commission could make a decision, he said. They may also want to complete a more rigorous environmental impact statement because of the controversy surrounding wolves, which could slow down decision-making, Wakeling said.

“It’s hard to sit here today and tell you whether that would take six months or a year,” Wakeling said.

Then there’s getting a 10j rule from the feds. The deadline, based on the initiative is Dec. 31.

*****************************
Wind and Solar Resistance: Not Just Here

Robert Bryce wrote a lengthy piece on his Substack, summarizing local resistance around the world as well as links to his Renewable Rejection Database. Here’s one example from Israel. I wonder how many other rural people feel “an almost sacred bond” for land “passed down by generation.” The concept of “you need to lose so that other people can win” is an uphill push politically. Much depends on “what are the alternatives?” and our sympathies for the people feeling the pain.

On June 24, The Times of Israel reported that “The head of the Druze community in Israel, Sheikh Muafak Tarif, has warned the government to stop the work to construct wind turbines in the Golan Heights, or face ‘a reaction the country has hitherto not seen.’” The article continued, saying the wind project has:

Angered Druze villagers who see the project as a threat to their agrarian way of life, an encroachment on ancestral lands and a solidification of what they view as Israel’s occupation of the territory. They contend that the giant, soaring poles and the infrastructure needed to construct them will impede their ability to work their plots. They also say the turbines will disturb the almost sacred bond they feel to their land, which is passed down by generation and where families go for fresh air and green space.

********************

Native Alaskans Flout or Flaunt: King Cove Version

I’ve been trying to reverse engineer who really has the ear of the Biden Admin by noting when they flout the wishes of Indigenous people and when they flaunt them. Certainly the recent Monumentizing in Arizona was a flaunt. King Cove, however, remains a flout. From June of this year, on Alaska Public Media.

The Trump administration agreed to a land swap in 2019 that would allow construction of the road. But President Biden’s Interior secretary, Deb Haaland, said the department wouldn’t go through with it and moved to pull out of the agreement this March.

On June 15, the court of appeals sided with the Department of the Interior, and granted Interior’s motion to dismiss the case.

“We’re glad to see the Izembek court case wrap up after the Interior Department’s withdrawal of the challenged land exchange,” said Bridget Psarianos, an attorney with Trustees for Alaska, a non-profit environmental law firm.

But lawyers for King Cove argue that the land exchange is still valid. They say the land exchange agreement can only change if a future court rules favorably on the decision to withdraw, and that they couldn’t just dismiss the motion in court.

“We believe the land exchange is still legal and valid,” said Della Trumble, the chief executive of King Cove Corp. in a statement. “As Native people, we will continue to fight for our rights and demand tribal consultation, which the Department of Interior failed to honor before executing its March 14, 2023 decision to terminate the land exchange.”

Although the Department of the Interior pulled out of this particular land swap, it said it’s looking into alternatives.

Who were the plaintiffs?
National Audubon, The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Refuge Association, Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Watch, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, and Sierra Club.

Little E-Bike Drama on the Front Range: Perhaps BLM HQ Should Take Note?

by

If you’ve been around long enough, you’ve seen everything, sometimes more than once.  Nature Deficit Disorder continues to be called out as a problem.  And after Covid, too many people are outside recreating..  which goes back to the argument of SUWA in the previous post on BLM’s E-bike “Instruction Memorandum.”

Brawer said that adding motorized mountain bikes “to already crowded trails necessitates the caution and further study provided for in this new guidance.”

This Denver Post article tells a more hopeful story about e-bikes.. on the Front Range, it’s turned out to be no big deal.

Just suppose, as I’ve observed (don’t know if there’s a study) that more old people use e-bikes.  Would this be age discrimination in access, then?  Many old people have disabilities.. would that be discrimination against the disabled?

I’m not saying this as an argument for bikes in Wilderness, just for e-bikes as a variety of mountain bikes on mountain bike approved trails.   Then there are at least two enforcement problems- you would have to see that that they are electric, and the confusion of adjacent jurisdictions with different rules makes it easy for people to claim ignorance or really not know. Finally, what would people in DC know about adjacent lands’ rules, or problems specific to an area? The whole “we know more research” rationale sounds to me like bunkum.

I bolded the relevant bits.

“There was no tolerance in our visitors for something with a throttle on a natural-surface trail,” said Mary Ann Bonnell, Jeffco Open Space visitor services and natural resources director.

“We heard that loud and clear,” she added. “We do not allow the Class 2, where you can have the power without pedaling. People said, ‘Nope, don’t want to see it. Don’t want to see someone flying up a hill and not pedaling.’”

But after five years, the county hasn’t found that e-bikes increased conflicts or created safety concerns, Bonnell said. “People continue to fall and have crashes on their mountain bikes, we continue to field complaints about conflicts, but they are not tied specifically to e-bikes.”

A mountain biker rides the singletrack trail on national forest land in Placitas, N.M., on July 8, 2019. Electric mountain bikes are prohibited on national forest land. (Photo by Susan Montoya Bryan/Associated Press)

In national forests, e-bikes are considered motor vehicles, so they are allowed only on roads and trails designated for motorized use. In Rocky Mountain National Park, e-mountain bikes can only go on roads where motor vehicles are allowed, paved or dirt. (It should be noted that human-powered mountain bikes are not allowed on the park’s hiking trails, either, with one small exception on the west side of the park.) In Colorado state parks, Class 1 and 2 e-bikes are allowed on roadways, designated bike lanes, and multi-use trails open to non-motorized cycling.

Boulder County Open Space allows Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes on its flatland trails, and has since 2019, but neither are allowed on its mountain trails. But the city only started allowing Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes on 39 miles of its 155-mile open-space trail system this month.

“As e-bikes were not allowed on city open space trails before July 1, we do not have statistically valid data for e-bike use on open space trails,” said Phillip Yates, a spokesman for Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, via email. “E-biking will be added as a new category in future visitor surveys, alongside all other allowed activities, to track change over time as part of system monitoring. That will allow staff to report out changes, if any, that may be attributed to e-biking activity on the open space visitor experience.”

************

The difference in how park and open space managers regulate e-mountain bikes reflects what is happening in Front Range municipalities. Denver allows all three types of e-bikes on bike paths, but with speed limits of 15 mph. Arvada passed an ordinance in January of 2021, allowing Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes on its bike paths. Lakewood allows Class 1 and Class 2 bikes on bike paths. Class 1 e-bikes are allowed on Lakewood’s soft surface trails, including at Bear Creek Lake Park and at William Fredrick Hayden Park on Green Mountain.

Before making its decision, Jeffco Open Space interviewed more than 400 visitors in five parks in 2017 to glean their thoughts about the issue. The agency also sent out volunteers on e-mountain bikes, then asked visitors if they had noticed any e-bikes on the trail, and many said no. Satisfied that the presence of e-mountain bikes would have minimal impact on other users, Jeffco moved forward with e-bikes as a pilot program in 2018 and updated its park regulations the following year to make it permanent.

A cyclist rides his bike along Shadow Pine Loop, an area where fire mitigation projects have taken place, at Flying J Ranch Park in Conifer on Sept. 20, 2022. Jeffco Open Space allows electric mountain bikes. (Photo by Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post)
A cyclist rides his bike along Shadow Pine Loop, an area where fire mitigation projects have taken place, at Flying J Ranch Park in Conifer on Sept. 20, 2022. Jeffco Open Space allows electric mountain bikes. (Photo by Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post)

“Every time it comes up, I have this sigh of relief that we took care of this in 2017, because I feel really good about how we made the decision,” Bonnell said. “We did a ton of data collection, getting in people’s heads, public meetings, meeting with stakeholders. I really feel like we did a thorough job. I feel good about the decision, and I also feel like it has played out well.”

Some visitors raised concerns that people on e-mountain bikes would get lost, or injured, or would call rangers for assistance with dead batteries miles from the trailhead. “That hasn’t happened,” Bonnell said. “Conflict continues between riders and runners and hikers, but it’s not e-bike-related conflict.”

Gary Moore, executive director of the Colorado Mountain Bike Association, said while some mountain bikers have expressed displeasure on social media statewide, the impact of e-mountain bikers on trails has been negligible.

“Any conflicts between trail visitors continue to be more of a matter of the people themselves,” he said, “rather than their preferred mode of travel. You see them pretty much anytime you go out now.”

Meanwhile, Jay Bollinger loves having his wife with him and their boys, who are 10 and 15, on the trails.

“It’s been really good,” he said. “She’s still regaining her skills, but it allows her to keep up, rather than being the one who’s slowing everybody down.”

********************

Rather than sending requests to DC, another option would be to work with stakeholders directly involved like Jefferson County did. After all, that’s what we expect from local managers on pretty much every other land management issue…

I’m also reviewing the new CEQ NEPA regs, and in the press release the Biden Admin says decisions should be
“effective, efficient, and transparent, guided by the best available science to promote positive environmental and community outcomes, and shaped by early and meaningful public engagement and input.”

Those are great ideas, IMHO, but we tend to what what people and organizations do, not what they say.

BLM’s New Centralized E-bike Approval Policy

by

Scott Streater had an interesting article in E&E News yesterday about a new BLM policy on e-bikes.

The Bureau of Land Management is clamping down on the use of electric bikes in areas where motorized, off-highway vehicles are prohibited — concerning some outdoor recreationists but pleasing conservation groups worried about protecting natural resources.

At issue is BLM’s instruction memorandum, dated Aug. 1 and sent to all field offices, that walks back a Trump-era rule exempting e-bikes from off-road vehicle regulations, thus allowing them to be used in some cases on backcountry trails and other areas where motorized transport is generally prohibited.

BLM says in the latest memo that when it comes to authorizing the use of e-bikes in certain areas — such as on remote mountain and backcountry trails — it warrants the bureau taking a more “cautious approach” to regulation than what was outlined in the 2020 rule.

Specifically, the memo signed by Thomas Heinlein, assistant director of the National Conservation Lands and Community Partnerships directorate, requires BLM state, district and field offices to obtain his department’s approval “before using the e-bike rule to exclude e-bikes from the definition of off-road vehicle” or before authorizing “e-bikes on trails on which motorized vehicles are otherwise prohibited.”

Doing so “will allow BLM leadership to carefully consider the issues raised by application of the rule in site-specific circumstances,” the memo says.  The directorate “is better situated than individual state, district, and field offices to monitor new research on impacts and the compatibility of e-bike use on public land,” the memo says. It calls for the directorate to stay current on “relevant research” on e-bike use in the event that future studies indicate “e-bike use results in different — and potentially greater — impacts than what was assumed when the BLM promulgated the e-bike rule in 2020.”
The instruction memo requirements do not apply to people with disabilities who request “to ride an e-bike on trails where mechanized use is allowed and off-road vehicle use is otherwise prohibited,” it says.

************

So going to the memo itself..

Moreover, the National Conservation Lands and Community Partnerships Directorate is better situated than individual state, district, and field offices to monitor new research on impacts and the compatibility of e-bike use on public land. To that end, the Directorate will monitor the status of relevant research. Staying apprised of recent developments will allow the Directorate to know whether new research indicates that e-bike use results in different—and potentially greater—impacts than what was assumed when the BLM promulgated the e-bike rule in 2020.

What’s interesting about this to me is the idea of running certain decisions through Headquarters and requiring a centralized approval.  A person could argue that a centralized office would be better able than a field office to monitor “relevant research” on just about anything.

Second, it may be difficult for the BLM to enforce critical aspects of the e-bike rule. Under the rule, an e-bike can be excluded from the definition of off-road vehicle and, therefore, allowed on trails where off-road vehicle use is otherwise prohibited, only when the electric motor is not exclusively propelling the e-bike for an extended duration. Despite language in the rule’s preamble asserting that such enforcement challenges are not unique, this limitation, which is intended to help keep speeds down and prevent riders from venturing too far into the backcountry, may be difficult to police on remote, non-motorized trails.

I wonder if scarce BLM law enforcement resources are best employed checking to see that bikes are e-bikes or not on trails.   But if there’s no enforcement people on remote non-motorized trails, it really doesn’t matter exactly what the rules are.

Conservation groups praised the move, saying it’s needed to ensure that increased public access to more remote areas afforded by the motorized bikes does not trump resource protection. “We are pleased the BLM is taking this issue seriously and recognizes that a ‘cautious approach’ is needed in managing e-bikes, particularly e-mountain bikes, on public lands,” Judi Brawer, a wildlands attorney at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said in a statement. Brawer said that adding motorized mountain bikes “to already crowded trails necessitates the caution and further study provided for in this new guidance.”

So the problem is too many people? And yet the same groups often advocate for “protection” designations based on the fact that they attract more people and revenue to gateway communities.

I asked Scott which conservation groups exactly, and he replied in an email: “SUWA. Sierra Club, PEER, Pacific Crest Trail, Backcountry Horsemen Association, some hiking conservation group whose name escapes me.”

I guess there’s two questions for me here.. if you don’t trust District Managers to make the right decisions, why start with e-bikes?  One of my contacts pointed out that centralizing decisions like this was considered to be bad during the Trump Admin, and the local folks were thought to be better at making decisions.  And so it goes…

Transmission Line Build-Out Across the West: Impacts to Wildfire and from Wildfire

by
Bob Berwyn/Summit Daily NewsThe U.S. Forest Service wants to clear dead trees from powerline corridors in the White River National Forest. Falling trees or a fire have the potential to affect wide areas of the western power grid.(from this 2009 story) https://www.aspentimes.com/news/feds-want-forest-input-on-colorado-powerlines/

Folks have been telling me that transmission lines don’t have as much chance of causing wildfires as distribution lines.  Naturally, I was interested in the details of why this is the case. A great big shout-out to BLM NEPA folks who have to examine all these things in detail.  I’ll give you some highlights from the Transwest Express EIS (which actually is a generally magnificent EIS with info on everything anyone, or at least I, can possibly imagine).  What I like about NEPA docs is that usually the authors don’t have a particular axe to grind, their job is to discuss the pros and cons, hopefully so regular people can understand them.

I’ve organized the risks about wildfire (causing them) and (being harmed by them).  If we believe (I don’t, thanks to fire suppression folks) that wildfires will increase by 50 %  (or whatever) due to climate change, does it make sense for us to decarbonize with sources that will need thousands of miles of transmission lines through wildfire-prone areas?

Workers Doing Construction and Maintenance

Impacts to ignition points from operation or maintenance activities such as welding, vehicle ignition, blasting, blading, and overland travel would be similar to those described under Section 3.21.6.1, Impacts from Terminal Construction and Operation. In addition, the presence of the energized transmission line could increase the risk of wildland fire ignition in areas of high fire risk and lightning strikes. Lightning protection would be provided by overhead shield wires on the top of the line.

Failure of Transmission Structures

Fires where power lines are located can be started by contact between the conductors and/or insulation and anything flammable or that could create a spark such as vegetation, floating or wind-blown debris, bullets, airplanes or helicopters, or other conductors. Failure of transmission structures could occur as a result of intentional damage (e.g., vandalism, terrorism), natural disasters, vehicle or aircraft collision, or a design or engineering flaw in a system component. However, the conductors and structures for high voltage lines tend to be of sufficient size to be resistant to physical damage. In addition, the transmission line would be protected with power circuit breakers and line relay protection equipment. If a conductor or component failure occurs, power would be automatically removed from the line. All buildings, fences, and other structures with metal surfaces located within 300 feet of the alignment would be grounded to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved.

High  Voltage vs. Lower Voltage and Distribution Lines

Here’s the answer to our question about the different kinds of lines, it’s about height and spacing:

While the risk of wildland fire ignition does increase with power lines, high-voltage power lines are much less likely to cause wildland fires than lower voltage and distribution lines due to their height and spacing, which limits contact with other lines, vegetation, and debris. In addition, the applicant will implement the Vegetation Management Plan described in Section 3.5, Vegetation, and Appendix D, POD, to minimize contact and or arcs with vegetation. The Vegetation Management Plan is designed to maintain trees and shrubs within certain heights to limit direct contact with the line, as well as prevent arcs from the power line to trees. A key component of the Vegetation Management Plan is the identification of hazard trees. Hazard trees are defined as trees located within or adjacent to the 250-foot-wide transmission line ROW that present a hazard to employees, the public, or power system facilities.

Looking for more exact numbers, I found a cite in this article

For example, per mile of power line, distribution lines are three times more likely to cause ignitions compared with transmission lines [19]

And that cite was to this paper:  Pacific Gas and Electric Company, “Pacific Gas and Electric Company Amended 2019 Wildfire Safety Plan,” Tech. Rep., 2019

I don’t know if there is better info out there somewhere, please put in comments if you find any.

Impacts to Fire Suppression Activities (Good and Bad Impacts)

If a wildland fire occurs near the Project, wildland firefighters and fire suppression efforts could be negatively and positively impacted. The ROW and structures could be an obstacle, and another feature requiring fire suppression efforts. The energized line during fires could be a risk to fire fighters on the ground, and could limit the area in which aircraft could assist in fire suppression activities. The Project would alter fire suppression priorities during wildland fire events. In portions of the route, the Project may be the only infrastructure in the area, and as such may be an obstacle to letting a fire burn safely to natural or engineered containment boundaries. The energized line and broken conductors can deliver currents long distance, especially if the line or conductors come in contact with linear features such as fences. Smoke particles can carry electrical charge, and dense smoke can allow arcing from the
conductor to the ground. If the Project is not de-energized during a wildland fire event, buffers would be required around structures and conductors for the safety of fire personnel. Positive impacts from the Project on wildland fire suppression would include the development of a 250-foot-wide transmission line ROW and additional access roads acting as fire breaks, and providing access to fire personnel. In addition, the vegetation management associated with the Project could decrease fuel loads, and fire intensity and severity within the ROW.

The presence of the transmission line does increase risk of ignitions through increased access. However, more importantly, it prevents the use of certain fire and fuels management tools (prescribed fire or wildland fire use) in the vicinity of the transmission line. Additionally, it requires a prioritization to suppress fires in and around the line to protect human lives and infrastructure. This, in turn, can result in fiscal impacts to the agency due to the risk of ignitions to suppress, additional values to protect, and the reduction in areas that wildland fire can be used to meet land management objectives. Additional risks include increased potential for undesirable fire effects and increased risk to fire suppression personnel.

But the Same ROW and Roads That Are Good For Fuel Breaks Are Also Bad For Ignitions

Increased access through the new and upgraded network of access roads and the maintained ROW would increase recreation traffic, and trespassing which would increase the potential for more vehicle and human caused ignitions. However increased access roads would increase fire breaks, and allow easier access for fire suppression activities during wildland fire events.

And Some Places Won’t Be Fuel Breaks

Level 1 and 2 (Wire Zone) vegetation management levels (as described in Section 3.5, Vegetation), would create fuel breaks within forested areas. Fuel breaks can assist in wildland firefighting by slowing down fire growth, reducing fireline intensity, and providing enhanced fire suppression opportunities. Level 2 (Border Zone) and 3 vegetation management levels would not receive intensive vegetation management within the ROW, and may not provide a substantial fuel break should a fire occur near the Project. In sage-grouse habitat, the BLM’s WO-IM 2013-128 (Sage-grouse Conservation in Fire Operations and Fuels Management) includes forming partnerships with linear ROW holders to maintain fuel breaks, which reduce fuel continuity and serve to protect at-risk landscapes. As the majority of sagebrush is under the height limits outlined in the Vegetation Management plan, vegetation clearing in TransWest Express EIS Section 3.21 – Wildland Fire 3.21-23 Final EIS 2015 sagebrush would typically not occur. However, the implementation of fuel breaks of sagebrush habitat
could provide a benefit to sage-grouse management by facilitating fire suppression, reducing the acres of habitat burned, and limiting vegetation clearing in suitable habitat.

I wonder if groups that are against hazard tree removals from roads are also against 250 foot transmission ROW’s? Or  in Bob Berwyn’s story

The proposal would allow the Forest Service or utility companies with powerlines on the three forests to fell and remove all hazardous trees within approximately 200 feet from the centerline of transmission lines and within 75 feet of centerline of distribution lines.

And finally, are wildfires bad for transmission lines? The flip side of the other question. I couldn’t find the answer easily in the voluminous BLM EIS (maybe we need machine learning to help find things in lengthy environmental docs) but here is one from Southern Cal.

The potential for wildfires to impact the operation of transmission facilities is a concern which must be considered when siting new transmission lines. This is particularly true for transmission lines passing through the southern portion of San Diego County due to the history of wildfires in this area. SDG&E’s existing 500 kV line, the Southwest Powerlink (SWPL), has experienced a number of outages as a result of wildfires along this transmission corridor. A second 500 kV line, collocated for the entire distance between the Imperial Valley and Miguel substations, would be expected to experience a similar outage frequency. The simultaneous loss of both transmission lines could pose a significant reliability concern for SDG&E.

Then there was the threat to California’s electricity grid from the Bootleg Fire. Now, I think that NEPA wise, solar and wind build-out to feed those transmission lines would be a connected action (?) but I didn’t go there.  Finally burying transmission lines is a thing, but apparently too expensive, and not even doable for cross-mountain transmission.

 

When Mitigation and Adaptation Collide: Wildfire Ignitions and 57% More Transmission Lines by 2030

by
https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report

Increasing risk of wildfire in 2050 (not that I necessarily believe this, but) from First Street Foundation

Power Lines Start Fires

1. As we have seen in various wildfires, power lines can start fires.  This particularly seems to happen under windy conditions, which makes for fires that are hard to control and in some cases, air resources can’t be used during these high wind events. Large transmission lines are not as  susceptible, we would think.  But how do people know when a major one is proposed in their neighborhood if it’s the “safe” kind or the “unsafe” kind?

Too Expensive to Protect, Need to Shut Off Instead

2. It’s a lot of work and money to maintain power lines, so much so that PG&E is thinking of changing their strategy to “just shut them down” instead, see this WSJ piece. Fires start, people sue, and ratepayers ultimately pay the bill, raising rates.  Do we expect more bad fire weather conditions due to climate change? That would mean more times for electricity to be turned off.  Who is likely to be able to afford back-up generators or batteries? If we’re cutting down on gas and there may be a shortage of battery minerals… This might be difficult as well.

Instead, the company will rely more heavily on new power-line settings in areas at high risk of fire. The lines shut off within a tenth of a second when branches or other objects touch them, reducing the risk of sparks.

Industry officials say customers may experience more power outages in coming years if the company’s scaled-back approach to tree trimming results in more branches hitting wires. The company said it would work to assess outage-prone circuits and address the issues with targeted tree clearing and other safeguards.

PG&E says the new approach will be both safer and less expensive as it works to permanently reduce wildfire risk by burying 10,000 miles of power lines in the coming years, an ambitious plan expected to cost at least $20 billion. The company is challenged in its ability to raise capital following a complex bankruptcy restructuring and has been working to cut costs in order to fund the work.

So people sued them, so they went bankrupt and have to do the best they can with the funding available. At least until the next cycle of wildlife/litigation/bankruptcy where one might expect them to have even less money.

From a Reuters story on the power grid:

“We shouldn’t have to worry about people dying because someone flips off the electric switch.”

Jana Langley, of Mesquite Texas, whose father had several strokes during a prolonged outage in the 2021 Texas deep freeze.
We Need 47,300 Miles More Power Lines by 2035; Do These Have Fire Risk?
This is an important question to many residents involved in siting of transmission lines.  What makes these new power lines different than the ones power companies can’t afford to maintain? After all, this is Front Street’s Wildfire Risk Map (no I don’t believe it’s accurate but predicting 2050)..

3. The New York Times editorial board opined:

The United States needs 47,300 gigawatt-miles of new power lines by 2035, which would expand the current grid by 57 percent, the Energy Department reported in February. A 2021 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine arrived at a similar figure. To hit that target, the United States needs to double the pace of power line construction.

and what could go wrong with the well-intentioned “federal pre-emption of state and local authorities” which “would only apply to major projects of national importance..”

According to CNBC:

Building transmission lines is more important for distributing renewable energy than it is for using fossil fuels because with coal, natural gas or nuclear baseload energy, the source of energy can be moved to where it is needed.

“With renewables, you can’t do that,” Robb said. “You’ve got to generate power where the sun is shining and where the wind is blowing.” Insufficient transmission lines have become a major “bottleneck” in deploying renewable resources, Robb told CNBC.

Does anyone think (no, I don’t think nuclear is a fossil fuel)  maybe nuclear has some practical advantages-  if we didn’t have to build new power lines (which we’re not probably going to actually build), plus wouldn’t it be safer and more secure than running new transmission lines across the country? Plus, I will predict that we’re actually not going to expand the grid by 57% by 2035; people, supply chains, funding and practicalities of all shapes and sizes, including pushback by those affected.  There’s a vaguely colonialist undertone as well.. like negatives accruing to some states and cheaper energy to others.. as in this Reuters story:

A swathe of grid expansions are needed in Central U.S. to pursue national renewable energy goals and lower power prices in neighboring regions, the Department of Energy said in a draft transmission study.

This kind of “some win some lose” does not go unnoticed by affected communities.

In this Reuters story, apparently we have enough problems with the power lines we have, that need to be fixed.

As the weather gets wilder, the grid gets older. The U.S. Department of Energy found that 70% of U.S. transmission lines are more than 25 years old in its last network-infrastructure review in 2015. Lines typically have a 50 year lifespan. The average age of large power transformers, which handle 90% of U.S. electricity flow, is more than 40 years. Transformer malfunctions tend to escalate at about 40 years, according to research by reinsurance provider Swiss Re.

***

Next post:

Some Impacts of Transmission Lines and Audubon’s Point of View

What Do Resort-y Parts of Hawaii, the Mountain West, Great Britain and Australia Have in Common? Housing Affordability and Displacement

by
Summer Auty is living in her van because rents are so high in Frome (England)

 

A RV stands on a street in Bozeman, Montana, in December 2022, a housing “fix” many locals are turning to as rents rise. Photo by Janie Osborne

I’m curious about gentrification, and whether residents of an area (Native or not) should some kind of right to continue to live there, given that it has become an area where young people are priced out of housing and costs of living.  You can think of say, Jackson in Wyoming. I don’t know the answer, but I’m raising it as a question. And would current natives have more of a right than new migrant low income people with jobs there?

We have our own Jacksons, Vails, and so on in the US, sometimes near federal lands, and the amenity migration plus tourism has been spreading post-Covid. Here’s one of many articles on that in Montana.

The Hawaiians have their own (at least Native Hawaiians according to this WaPo article)

The displacement of Native Hawaiians is a particularly acute concern now, as much of the island has been targeted for gentrification, driving up the costs of living and forcing many Native Hawaiians to move to mainland cities like Las Vegas.

And the short-term rental phenomena and displacement also occurs in England, as per this BBC story.

In nearby Bruton, the chair of the town council, Ewan Jones said the rise of holiday lets had taken many rental properties out of the market.

“We have the UK’s biggest farmhouse cheese manufacturer in this parish, you talk to them and their number one concern is ‘where do our workers live?'”

He said schools in particular were worried about the supply of homes their teachers and support staff could afford to live in.

This statement could be about Durango or any number of communities in the US… it’s just interesting this seems to be a common trend across many countries (at least those whose news is in English).

After I read this excellent article in the The Times Sunday Magazine, I went down a curiosity rabbit-hole on Airbnb and influences on housing availability. The Times has a six month deal for one pound.  Seems like this would be a great interactive map and story for the US.. I wonder if someone’s done it?

From the story..

Devon locals complaining about how Devon locals are being priced out of Devon — so far, so unsurprising. But in the past few years the focus of complaint has changed. The main threat used to be second home owners. In 2011 local councillors formed a steering committee to promote affordable housing and local jobs; their charter firmly stated that stemming the tide of second homes was a priority. But now that threat has been overshadowed by a new and more virulent one. The area has seen a huge, Silicon Valley-charged influx of Airbnbs. Of the 1,022 residential properties in Lynton’s EX35 postcode, 163 of them are available for short-term rental on Airbnb. That’s almost one in six properties, making it one of the most Airbnb’d places in the UK. But not the most.

Airbnb was originally presented as a pocket-money booster for people with a spare room — the company’s pitch to investors in 2008 was “book rooms with locals, rather than hotels”. But data compiled exclusively for The Sunday Times Magazine illustrates just how pervasive Airbnb has become in many of Britain’s most popular tourist areas. That the demand for holiday homes should be higher in these areas is to be expected, but the scale of the shift to short-term lets — and the knock-on effect this is having on villages, towns and cities and the people who try to live in them — is dramatic.

Here’s an article about how it works in Australia, with some interesting ideas..

Given holiday homes will remain an important part of tourism infrastructure in regional areas, could we make use of them in more strategic ways? For instance, during natural disasters or housing crises?

An estimated 65,000 people were temporarily displaced during the 2019-20 bushfires that ravaged the east coast. Some 3,100 houses were also destroyed, leaving around 8,000 people in urgent need of accommodation.

Similarly, over 14,000 homes were damaged in NSW by last year’s floods, and more than 5,000 were left uninhabitable.

A year later, many people in NSW continue to live in inadequate accommodation. Government-issued temporary homes, such as campervans and “pods”, are in woefully short supply.

Housing generally takes a long time to build, making it difficult to respond to such short-term increases in demand.

More strategic and creative use of the short-term rental stock might be the answer. We have seen some gestures by Airbnb and other platforms to support people displaced by disasters, but these responses have largely been ad hoc and uncoordinated.

When disaster zones are declared, Commonwealth and state governments could mandate and coordinate access to short-term rental accommodations for displaced residents and relief workers.

We could even extend such declarations during housing crises like the one we’re experiencing now, as the mayor of Eurobodalla on the NSW south coast has suggested. This would give governments time to deliver longer-term housing solutions in areas of heavy demand.

New Wolf Pack on the Sequoia, and WaPo Story on German Wolves

by

Apparently a third wolf pack in California has been confirmed on the Sequoia National Forest. Here’s a news story.

The WaPo had an interesting story titled “Wolves, once confined to fairy tales, are back in Germany, stirring debate.”

The spread of wolves — through Germany and into Belgium, the Netherlands and beyond — has become an issue at the highest levels of the European Union. Last fall, it touched a personal nerve for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, when a wolf killed her pony outside her home in northwest Germany. She wrote later that the E.U.’s executive body recognizes “that the return of the wolf and its growing numbers lead to conflict.”

At a local level, the conflict pits farmers against conservationists. People on both sides have been accused of taking matters into their own hands: Hunting shelters have been burned down and wolves have been illegally shot and dismembered.

*************

As the wolf population has grown, attacks have become more frequent. There have been 216 in Lower Saxony so far this year — killing 601 animals — compared to 174 attacks in the same seven-month period last year. Across Germany, 4,366 farm animals were killed by wolves in 2022, including 30 horses and four llamas. That marked a 30 percent rise from the year before.

“It’s emotional,” Jahnke said. “It really makes you crazy.”

The protection of wolves is enshrined in E.U. law, though last year the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution calling for a downgrade. The European Commission, which would oversee such a change, is conducting an analysis.

E.U. member states have split into camps over the issue, with environment ministers from a dozen countries — including Germany — arguing against any weakening of protections; while Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway have tested the teeth of existing protections by allowing recent wolf culls.

For now, Germany only allows a wolf to be shot if it’s deemed a particular nuisance to livestock. After each attack, a DNA swab is taken from the dead animal to find out which wolf was responsible. If a wolf is found to have jumped electric fences or gotten past protection dogs twice, a special shooting permit can be granted.

***********

Federal Land Management Agency Field Law Enforcement Officers Per Million Acres

by

Thanks to Rich J. for pointing out this chart from this GAO report:

It definitely tells a story. Not a good one IMHO.  BLM land is important and conceivably people following the rules there is equally important.  And my observations on public land recreation is that many people don’t follow rules unless they think they might be enforced. It would be great to have a guest post from a BLM or FS field law enforcement person (or recently retired) and hear from them how to improve the situation.  If you have LE friends, please share this request.

Why Monuments and Not National Conservation Areas? More Monument-al Reflections

by

A few quotes and reflections about Monuments. In some sense, they seem more about politicians getting credit from supportive groups, rather than good things happening on the ground. And those experienced with BLM processes please correct me if I’ve gotten some things wrong.

**************
First of all, there’s kind of a philosophical question about “protection.” If there are the many wondrous things talked about, say, in a Monument proclamation, then existing laws and regulations must have already protected them, so no biggy, really. To protect archeological sites on far-ranging areas like 1.1 mill acres, you probably need more law enforcement. The same groups that work so hard on Monuments (I’m talking big NGOs) could easily fund those kinds of collaborative efforts.

So if we go by the rhetoric, then there are unspecific future things that could be proposed, that we need to keep from happening before they are proposed, because we can’t trust existing statutes, regulations and processes to protect the environment. And the environment in this place is more important than elsewhere, for various reasons.

So what is this desire to Monumentize really about? For the Prez, it could just be politics as usual, rewarding friends with a frisson of punishing enemies (Utah is right next door to this one). But that’s not entirely it.

*********

I ran across an article in the Wall Street Journal about a rich person named Elaine Wynn in Las Vegas and the Basin and Range National Monument. This story is about Congress, but the principle’s the same..important ($) people want Monuments.

She has remade herself as a world-level art collector and a force in public art, supporting the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and using her influence to help create a national monument designation to protect land around Michael Heizer’s City—a 1.25-mile-long earthwork sculpture in Nevada. She has taken her work in Nevada education to the national level: She is chairman of Communities in Schools, which provides resources to disadvantaged children. It recently received a surprise $133 million gift from MacKenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos’s ex-wife.
***
Michael Govan, director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, says Wynn was a key figure in the 2015 creation of Basin and Range National Monument, which protects the 704,000 acres surrounding Heizer’s City. President Barack Obama approved the designation. “When [Elaine] started making calls to Congress,” Govan says, “somehow I was received in a different way.”

***********

Let’s also look at this op-ed from the Durango Herald by an outdoor businessperson from last Friday.

“There is a new community-led movement for the president to designate the Dolores River Canyon Country as a national monument, which would open new avenues for local economic growth, increase resources to thoughtfully manage these wildlands and deepen the quality of life in our community. We believe that a landscape-scale national monument would open the door to better management and conservation, and provide additional resources to land managers to accommodate for sustainable recreation and continued access.”

Hmm. “New avenues for local economic growth”- what does that mean exactly? More people coming to town? But the area is overcrowded already. And as we’ve seen with the San Gabriels, a Monument does not necessarily come with more funding attached. I don’t know about “deepening the quality of life” but in other parts of Colorado, more people does not actually deepen the quality of life. And again, the author says “provide additional resources to land managers.”

I see several problems with this thinking. 1. More growth and people is not necessarily better, not if it leads to housing problems, etc. 2. Monuments need Monument plans, which distracts managers from.. actually managing (and reopen disagreements, which doesn’t necessarily “deepen the quality of life” at least not for the people involved). 3. Even if they did get additional resources, would the new number of bodies outstrip the new resources? and 4. Even if they did get more resources, as new Monuments pop up everywhere, they will be competing with each other and who is to say that a Dolores River Monument would beat out Chimney Rock, Brown’s Canyon, or Canyon of the Ancients, or Bears’ Ears or ..

Another interesting part of the op-ed is this..

Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper are leading the way to protect the Dolores River Canyon County, and have introduced legislation to designate a National Conservation Area to protect nearly 68,000 acres of the river corridor through Ponderosa Gorge. We are very supportive of this legislation and urge the senators to do anything they can to ensure it becomes law. However, the legislation does not encompass the entirety of the watershed, and politics in Congress are so uncertain that there may not be a viable path for the bill to become law.

If you take a look at the bill, it tends to have the same feel as a Monument; it is in fact very detailed about what’s in and what’s out. It has a FACA committee to be established within 180 days.. good luck with that! It’s got motorized travel only on existing routes, no new temp or permanent roads except for public health and safety, yes to grazing, but withdrawals from future minerals (401b). Uranium crops up again..

(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this title affects valid leases or lease tracts existing on the date of enactment of this Act issued under the uranium leasing program of the Department of Energy within the boundaries of the Conservation Area.

UPDATE: BASED ON CORRECTION FROM TSW READERS

So there are National Conservation Areas.  Congress gets NCAs, the Prez gets Monuments.  One can imagine if political friends of an Admin want this kind of thing, it’s much easier to get.. just a stroke of a pen (OK, so obviously they do talk to some people in advance).   But of course, as with NCA’s, first they make the decision about what’s in and out, and then have public comment and an EIS on any decision space left. Which kind of leaves the impression.. yes, NEPA is superimportant, as is public involvement, including marginalized communities.. but not for really important decisions.

It seems like an advantage of Monuments that they can do some Service-First-y things with the FS; whereas I don’t know how they handle FS land in and around NCAs.

But anyway, for now, just for the BLM, we have a variety of conservation designations – Monuments, ACECs, NCAs, Wilderness, and WSAs. Perhaps other citizens find this to be needlessly confusing? And there’s more encouragement of ACECs in the proposed BLM public lands rule.

If I were elected President (a candidate of the Good Governance Party), I’d ask the Secretaries to make a table of all the existing protected area designations on the Forest Service and BLM. The table would include what activities are allowed and which not, with maps. For each specific area, I’d ask how much funding went to work within those areas. Then I think Admins and Congress would have a better picture of the whole array of land restrictions, and where the bucks actually get to the ground. I’d also think that some of these designations could be fitted into simplified bands across the FS and BLM as to what activities are in and out, to increase public understanding of, and perhaps make it easier to enforce, the rules designed to protect from impacts.