gliffen

President Obama speaks to a joint session of Congress in 2009

The EPA is Under Attack (This is Not a Drill)

By Richard Garrett, Jr.
Your voice for conservation at the Wyoming State Legislature

WITH SO MUCH DUST KICKED UP OVER THE DEBT-CEILING DEBATE IT’S BEEN EASY FOR PARTISAN INTERESTS to obscure the mischief that the Republican controlled House Committee on Appropriations has been up to.

With the passage of H.R.2584, the Interior and Environmental Appropriations Bill, the U.S. House of Representatives will now be given the opportunity to strip from law and regulation any number of environmental protections as well as the people’s right to bring action against federal agencies.

Among other things, this bill clearly shows that the majority party in the House is intent on dismantling the EPA.

This is part of a larger trend. As The New York Times reported on August 17, bashing the EPA has become a favorite theme in the G.O.P race for the presidential nomination.

Riders on the Storm

Following is a summary of some of the riders to the appropriations bill that the ranking minority member, Representative Jim Moran, called “a wish list for special interests.”

You can see more at the minority party’s committee website.

My take on many of the riders can be found in italics below:

Blocks Permit Requirements for Pesticide Discharge in Waterways [Title V]: Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Clean Water Act to eliminate requirements for chemical companies and agricultural operations to obtain permits for discharging pesticides into waterways. In 2009 a federal court ruled that pesticide users must get an EPA permit in order to discharge pesticides directly into waterways. While this probably seems prudent to most readers, some of our elected officials obviously disagree.

Blocks EPA Regulation of Hard Rock Mining Operations [Section 455]: Prohibits funding for the EPA to develop additional financial assurance requirements for hard rock mining operations. Why shouldn’t a hard rock mine operator be required to provide adequate financial assurances? These are big and messy operations that require a lot of capital to develop, operate, and clean up. Just imagine how much more profitable they could be if they didn’t have to do the last item on that list … that must be what the committee had to imagine, too.

Removes Protection of Grand Canyon from Uranium Mining Claims [Section 445]: Prohibits the U.S. Secretary of the Interior from implementing a land withdrawal to protect the Grand Canyon from new uranium mining claims. In June, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar infuriated mining interests and Wyoming Representative Cynthia Lummis by announcing a six-month moratorium on new claims within a 1 million acre buffer around the Grand Canyon (something he was instructed to do by the 2008 U.S. Congress). It’s hard to imagine why a representative from Wyoming—the state that leads the nation in uranium reserves—would be so concerned with diminishing our state’s competitive advantage. Maybe it’s because the mining industry is one of her top campaign contributors.

Blocks Coal Ash Regulation [Section 434]: Prohibits the EPA from regulating fossil fuel combustion waste (coal ash) under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. When more than 1.7 million tons of coal ash broke free from a containment site in Tennessee and caused what some called the largest environmental disaster of its kind in U.S. history, many believed the disposal and regulation of coal ash would be a no-brainer. Apparently the mining and power industries thought so too, and they reached out to their friends in the U.S. House of Representatives to stop any attempt at tighter scrutiny.

Blocks Modification of Clean Water Act [Sec. 435]: Prohibits the EPA from changing or supplementing guidance or rules related to the scope of the Clean Water Act. This one is all about hydraulic fracturing and industry’s efforts to avoid its responsibilities to do everything in its power to make sure it’s not contaminating our nation’s groundwater resources.

Blocks Update to Mountaintop Removal Mining Rule [Section 432]: Prohibits the U.S. Office of Surface Mining from updating the “stream buffer rule.” This is for the benefit of companies engaged in Mountaintop Removal Mining. Why should we care about moutaintop removal? Maybe a picture says it best (photo courtesy of PoliticalAffairs.net and The Atlanta Progressive News):

Blocks Mountaintop Removal Mining Policy at Multiple Agencies [Sec. 433]: Prohibits the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Office of Surface Mining from implementing or enforcing any policy or procedures contained in two specified documents meant to regulate mountaintop removal mining. See above.

Blocks Judicial Review of De-listing Wolves in Wyoming and the Great Lakes [Section 119]: Protects from judicial review any decision of the Secretary of the Interior to remove wolves in Wyoming or the Great Lakes region from the endangered species list. I hope my libertarian friends (and those who are interested in maintaining three co-equal branches of government) are alert to this one. While this rider is specifically about the wolf, it clearly sets a precedent that could ultimately mean that no citizen is able to call for judicial review of federal government actions—whenever Congress decides we should not have that right.

Blocks Endangered Species Act Designations [Language on page 8]: Prohibits funding for Endangered Species Act listings or critical habitat designations. This rider is a bald attempt to kill the Endangered Species Act by simply removing its funding.

It’s Time to Call or Email Our Congressional Delegation

With the summer adjournment of the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R.2584 is now waiting to be placed on the calendar.

Most pundits predict easy passage of the bill (with the riders intact). This would mean the Senate would have to try to strip the riders and work out a compromise with the House or, failing to accomplish that, ask President Obama for a veto—and it’s not yet apparent the president is willing to do that.

So in the meantime (if you agree that these riders are a bad idea) please—PLEASE!—get in touch with your congressional delegation and let them know how you feel. Here is a link that can help you do just that (http://www.contactingthecongress.org). Just find the map and click on your state.

Richard Garrett, the Wyoming Outdoor Council’s legislative and energy advocate, can be reached at richard@wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org, or at 307-332-7031 x18.

Lisa McGee with the Wyoming Outdoor Council tells Jackson Hole Community Radio about the proposed full-field gas drilling project in the Upper Hoback area of the Wyoming Range—and what it will take to protect this special landscape.

[soundcloud url=”http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/20853394″]

“We believe the values there are really too high; too special. Not only for wildlife—but for recreation, for sustainable businesses, outfitters, guides, schools like the National Outdoor Leadership School. So we think the national forests in general, the Bridger-Teton in particular, have higher and better uses.”

“Folks who live in the area . . . many of these folks rely on this fairly shallow aquifer for their drinking water. And so it just takes one mistake; and while mistakes don’t happen every day, they’re not uncommon. It just takes one mistake . . .  in the whole life cycle of drilling a well to contaminate a water source, and in this case a wild and scenic river, and we really don’t want to see that happen.”

—Lisa McGee

Other posts you might want to see:

Opposition to Wyo Range drilling has galvanized

NPR: Worries over water as fracking becomes pervasive

Wondering what the frack is going on?

Fracking linked to water contamination

Fracking not as safe as industry claims

‘I asked them for the data and they wouldn’t share it’

Very funny Video: Stephen Colbert talks fracking

Proposed Greater Yellowstone gas field

Retired official: Bridger-Teton development is a bad idea

Industry executives as well as regulators have long said that fracking has never contaminated underground drinking water.

But the New York Times reports there is at least one documented case.

Excerpt one:

The report concluded that hydraulic fracturing fluids or gel used by the Kaiser Exploration and Mining Company contaminated a well roughly 600 feet away on the property of James Parsons in Jackson County, W.Va., referring to it as “Mr. Parson’s water well.”

“When fracturing the Kaiser gas well on Mr. James Parson’s property, fractures were created allowing migration of fracture fluid from the gas well to Mr. Parson’s water well,” according to the agency’s summary of the case. “This fracture fluid, along with natural gas was present in Mr. Parson’s water, rendering it unusable.”

Asked about the cause of the incident, Mr. Wohlschlegel emphasized that the important factor was that the driller and the regulator had not known about the nearby aquifer. But in comments submitted to the E.P.A. at the time about the report, the petroleum institute acknowledged that this was indeed a case of drinking water contamination from fracking.

“The damage here,” the institute wrote, referring to Mr. Parsons’ contaminated water well, “results from an accident or malfunction of the fracturing process.”

Excerpt two:

“I still don’t understand why industry should be allowed to hide problems when public safety is at stake,” said Carla Greathouse, the author of the E.P.A. report that documents a case of drinking water contamination from fracking. “If it’s so safe, let the public review all the cases.”

Read the full story here.

Other posts you might want to see:

NPR: Worries over water as fracking becomes pervasive

Wondering what the frack is going on?

Fracking linked to water contamination

Fracking not as safe as industry claims

‘I asked them for the data and they wouldn’t share it’

Very funny video: Stephen Colbert talks fracking

Another big story on hydraulic fracturing. Listen here.

Other posts you might want to see:

Wondering what the frack is going on?

Fracking linked to water contamination

Fracking not as safe as industry claims

‘I asked them for the data and they wouldn’t share it’

Very funny video: Stephen Colbert talks fracking

Colbert on flammable tap water:

“I think this is an improvement. What would you rather have in your kitchen: a boring old faucet or a built-in creme brulee maker?”

On with the satire:

If you’re interested in the debate about hydraulic fracturing, we highly recommend listening to the show “Game Changer” from This American Life.

It’s both engaging and informative.

Click here or on the image above to listen.

Other posts you might want to see:

Wondering what the frack is going on?

Fracking linked to water contamination

Fracking not as safe as industry claims

‘I asked them for the data and they wouldn’t share it’

The Wyoming Outdoor Council board and staff toured and hiked up Little Mountain as part of our June 25-26 board meeting. Here are some images from that trip. All photos were taken by board member Kathy Lichtendahl.

Click the images to enlarge.

The Wyoming Association of Churches sponsored a variety of Red Desert tours last weekend as part of the Red Desert Rendezvous.

The Wyoming Outdoor Council helped organize the tours, and many of our members and staff took the opportunities to spend time in some of the Red Desert’s most spectacular landscapes.

The Outdoor Council’s communications director, Chris Merrill, joined the Adobe Town tour and he took these photos.

Click the images to enlarge.

Golden eagle, photo by Martin Mecnarowski

‘These numbers can add up alarmingly fast’

By Sophie Osborn

As industrial-scale wind energy development has expanded in Wyoming, observers have grown increasingly concerned about potential impacts to our wildlife. Over the last few years, many Wyomingites have worked diligently to protect the iconic greater sage-grouse from this latest threat to our sagebrush landscapes.

But recently, the plight of the golden eagle has quietly captured the attention of federal and state agencies and, increasingly, concerned citizens.

Evidence is mounting that Wyoming wind farms are killing more golden eagles than expected. Measures to try to reduce eagle impacts could have a major effect on the number and location of wind turbines that are ultimately deployed in the state.

High numbers of golden eagles killed at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area in California in the early 1990s alerted the world to the threat that wind turbines pose for these majestic birds.

Better turbine designs and improved siting of wind farms offered hope that such fatalities could be addressed and mitigated.

But eagle fatalities at newly constructed wind farms in Wyoming suggest that such measures, while important, are not a panacea.

Wyoming has long been a stronghold for breeding golden eagles and is also an important wintering area for many eagles that originate from parts north. These long-lived birds usually don’t begin reproducing until they are about five years old and typically produce only one or two young per year.

As a result, deaths of adult eagles, which typically have low mortality rates, can have significantly adverse effects on populations.

Over the last few decades, golden eagle populations have declined across the West.

In response to these declines and the serious threat posed to these birds by wind turbines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently developed an eagle conservation plan that provides guidance for how to reduce eagle fatalities at wind farms.

Wyoming’s wind-power build-out could pose a serious risk to eagles

According to the U.S Fish and Wildlife’s Patricia Sweanor, in a presentation given at the Raptor Research Foundation September 2010 conference (click here for the abstract), fatality rates in one geographic area in Wyoming have approached one eagle per 39 wind turbines per year.

In a nearby area, with an abundant prey base, fatality rates have been as high as one eagle per 13 turbines per year (the equivalent of approximately five eagles killed per year at one 66-turbine wind farm).

These numbers can add up alarmingly fast.

Wyoming currently has approximately 1,000 turbines operating and another thousand are planned for construction in the next few years.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the eventual build-out of wind farms in Wyoming could consist of 10,000 turbines—posing a serious risk to eagles if more stringent siting measures and best management practices are not adopted.

Golden eagles and bald eagles are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Both federal laws were developed to help protect our nation’s bird populations. The Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with implementing these federal statutes.

Killing eagles—even through unintentional activities such as harnessing the wind for energy—violates federal law, though currently no wind farm has ever been prosecuted for its actions or had to pay fines (unlike utility companies, oil and gas companies, and other energy developers that have inadvertently killed birds through their activities).

The Fish and Wildlife Service can grant permits that allow for the killing or “take” of eagles, but according to its new eagle conservation plan, companies will have to adhere to strict siting measures and conservation practices before they can procure such permits.

In addition, the agency will require that wind companies offset those eagles that they do kill by contributing to a conservation fund or by retrofitting dangerous power poles to save an equivalent number of eagles from collisions and electrocutions in the same region.

Photo by Dan Hayward

The Fish and Wildlife Service is striving to achieve a no-net-loss of eagles so it can meet its goal of sustaining stable or increasing eagle populations.

The Wyoming Outdoor Council recently submitted extensive comments on the Service’s draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance; click here to see these comments.

We support the agency’s plan to better protect eagles from industrial-scale wind energy development.

Last year, we included many of the advanced conservation practices that the federal government is currently proposing in our “Wind energy: doing it right in Wyoming” brochure.

However, in our recent comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we also suggested some additional protective measures such as conducting more frequent surveys to better document eagle use of a proposed project area prior to siting turbines, and the temporary or permanent shut-down of turbines that kill a disproportionate number of eagles.

The Council supports renewable energies such as wind energy because they could—if coupled with increased energy efficiency—help reduce toxic emissions and the use of fossil fuels.

However, we also recognize that some areas are inappropriate for industrial-scale wind development.

Where wind energy development poses little threat to wildlife and does not disrupt cultural resources and cherished viewsheds, we urge wind companies to remain in compliance with federal statutes by adopting conservation practices that will reduce adverse effects to wildlife.

Wind developers must do their utmost to live up to the “green” reputation that they often tout.

Truly green energy will exploit the Wyoming wind, but will do so while sustaining Wyoming’s wildlife and iconic vistas.

Contact: Sophie Osborn, Wyoming Outdoor Council, 307-742-6138; sophie@wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org.

Sophie Osborn is a wildlife biologist and the Wyoming Outdoor Council’s wildlife program director. She is the author of the award-winning book Condors in Canyon Country.

Check out this video slideshow of incredible Wyoming images from the Wyoming Outdoor Council’s 2011 calendar, featuring both professional and amateur photographers.

Other posts you might want to see:

Enter the Wyoming Outdoor Council photo contest

Media Release: Obama administration should stick to its guns