This is an update to something a wrote about in February (it seemed long ago enough to warrant a new post instead of an addendum). The Minneapolis City Council recently passed a major funding bill that Mayor Hodges signed to fix and update park and recreation center facilities over a 20 year period. It will be funded by a one-time property tax increases and some smaller levies but will provide a designated stream of maintenance funding for two decades. This is a huge deal. While time will tell if the funding is sufficient (and also if the city will now view its duties as fulfilled), locking in funds for parks and ensuring that it isn't an unfunded mandate to be paid for "somehow" or by cuts in services is rare and noteworthy. An alternative method would have been to take advantage of historically low interest rates and pass a bonding bill, but those are more complex and challenging (and potentially even more controversial than property tax changes). Either way, I'm pleased with this development and hope that it is a sign that Minneapolis will be continuing to make commitments to and investments in its world class parks system.
Additional note, this will be my last post in the series for my real estate course, though for any readers I have picked up, I do hope to keep this going now that I've restarted, on a fairly regular basis. I have a number of places I've visited since I left off writing that I'd like to review and am constantly coming up with other little ideas, so hopefully this won't trail off. I don't know what the frequency will be, but I intend to find or make time to do at least a little bit of posting. I'll also probably return to a more explicitly public lands and parks focus, though, this being my personal blog, I reserve the right to talk about whatever else I want (but mostly property, land and environment, because that's what I like). I'm also going to be starting a fellowship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service soon working on wetland acquisitions, so I'm excited to start that, combining my legal, geographic, mapping, and real estate knowledge in the service of environmental preservation and biodiversity. Pretty good stuff.
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Monday, May 2, 2016
Wolves and Moose on Isle Royale
Isle Royale National Park is an island in Lake Superior reachable only by ferry from the mainland. Though part of the state of Michigan, it is much closer to Minnesota and the Canadian province of Ontario than to the Upper Peninsula. While it was formerly occupied and used for copper mining, the archipelago is now a designated Wilderness area (there are still historical structures and lighthouses, but no permanent residents or industry). It has also been the site of a long-running study of wolf and moose populations.
As a generally isolated system, the island has been an ideal setting for tracking predator-prey dynamics. However, this has led to problems, particularly for the smaller wolf population, with inbreeding and genetic diversity. In particularly cold winters it is possible for animals to cross onto and off of the island over ice bridges, but there is no guarantee that wolves or moose will do so in any given year. An introduced parvovirus wiped out a sizable number of the wolves and the remaining populations went into a precipitous decline. A lone male in the 1990s had brought some genetic diversity back to the island, but the population is now down to two. A closely inbred pair that has had little success with offspring (one recent pup that has since died was visibly deformed).
The decline in predation has led, not surprisingly, to a substantial increase in the moose population on the island. While this is in some ways good, moose on the mainland are struggling under pressure from ticks and brainworm, it can have damaging long-term consequences for the island's ecosystem and the moose population itself, from over-consumption and soil damage. Perhaps the island can provide a temporary refuge for a population, until conditions on the mainland improve (though with climate change driving many of these changes due to warmer winters that is an iffy proposition). Management of wolves and moose on the mainland in Minnesota is an even more complicated and at times controversial issue, that largely pits hunters, property owners, and conservationists against each other, but in a complicated network. For example, hunters want to hunt moose, but they also want to ensure that there are always moose to hunt. Some oppose hunting moratoriums, while others don't. Some want predators removed (like the wolves) while others want more moose brought in. It's complicated and the state Department of Natural Resources has the unenviable job of balancing the interests of all these people while also maintaining both the animal and physical resources of the state for the benefit of all the people using scientific best practices (subject to political decisions...). But I digress.
Back on Isle Royale, there is a controversy about whether wolves should be allowed to go extinct, be repopulated once they die out, or have new members introduced before they do to refresh the gene pool as a "genetic rescue." At this point, with only two remaining wolves, genetic rescue is out of the question. They are aging and too closely related with a poor track record of reproduction. It is almost certain that the wolves will die out soon, possibly even this year. What happens then? It is possible that as wolf populations increase on the mainland they will repopulate the island in search of prey and new territory. This is likely how wolves originally came to Isle Royale in the 1940s. It is also possible that they don't and that the moose population goes through cycles of boom and crash (with associated problems for plants, soils, and other species). The moose could be managed by removal or hunting, or allowed to cycle and starve. Wolves could also be reintroduced from healthy, genetically diverse populations either from the mainland or elsewhere in the country (some areas are viewed as "over populated," at least in terms of minimizing human-wildlife conflict in fringe areas).
What complicates all of these decisions, in addition to uncertainty about what will versus what could happen, is the fact that Isle Royale is a designated Wilderness, where human intervention is meant to be limited. What that means in practice varies (humans occupied and mined the island, have caused climate change, have introduced illness and other species), but generally means that there will be minimal intervention going forward, regardless of what has happened in the past. This can be contrasted with (and in some ways was a response in the 1960s to) the "Disney-fication" of some of the more popular and iconic national parks, that are actively managed to generate certain views and experiences and provide certain amenities (again, this is a side issue, but for a much longer exploration of the issue, read my undergraduate thesis on it here). My take, which appears to be in line with the current NPS position and that of many scientists, is one of "wait and see." While there are potential harms to allowing wolves to disappear and moose numbers to increase, there is also the question of what it means to return the island to a "natural" state. Should the moose also be removed and caribou and lynx reintroduced to restore the fauna of the 1800s? Should all of them be restored? While any decision, including the decision not to act, will have consequences, it seems most in line with the spirit of the island, and island ecosystems generally, to let things play out as they will, though if a moose crisis truly appears, it can be revisited (including hunting, which isn't categorically prohibited in Wilderness, though it is in National Parks).
As a generally isolated system, the island has been an ideal setting for tracking predator-prey dynamics. However, this has led to problems, particularly for the smaller wolf population, with inbreeding and genetic diversity. In particularly cold winters it is possible for animals to cross onto and off of the island over ice bridges, but there is no guarantee that wolves or moose will do so in any given year. An introduced parvovirus wiped out a sizable number of the wolves and the remaining populations went into a precipitous decline. A lone male in the 1990s had brought some genetic diversity back to the island, but the population is now down to two. A closely inbred pair that has had little success with offspring (one recent pup that has since died was visibly deformed).
The decline in predation has led, not surprisingly, to a substantial increase in the moose population on the island. While this is in some ways good, moose on the mainland are struggling under pressure from ticks and brainworm, it can have damaging long-term consequences for the island's ecosystem and the moose population itself, from over-consumption and soil damage. Perhaps the island can provide a temporary refuge for a population, until conditions on the mainland improve (though with climate change driving many of these changes due to warmer winters that is an iffy proposition). Management of wolves and moose on the mainland in Minnesota is an even more complicated and at times controversial issue, that largely pits hunters, property owners, and conservationists against each other, but in a complicated network. For example, hunters want to hunt moose, but they also want to ensure that there are always moose to hunt. Some oppose hunting moratoriums, while others don't. Some want predators removed (like the wolves) while others want more moose brought in. It's complicated and the state Department of Natural Resources has the unenviable job of balancing the interests of all these people while also maintaining both the animal and physical resources of the state for the benefit of all the people using scientific best practices (subject to political decisions...). But I digress.
Back on Isle Royale, there is a controversy about whether wolves should be allowed to go extinct, be repopulated once they die out, or have new members introduced before they do to refresh the gene pool as a "genetic rescue." At this point, with only two remaining wolves, genetic rescue is out of the question. They are aging and too closely related with a poor track record of reproduction. It is almost certain that the wolves will die out soon, possibly even this year. What happens then? It is possible that as wolf populations increase on the mainland they will repopulate the island in search of prey and new territory. This is likely how wolves originally came to Isle Royale in the 1940s. It is also possible that they don't and that the moose population goes through cycles of boom and crash (with associated problems for plants, soils, and other species). The moose could be managed by removal or hunting, or allowed to cycle and starve. Wolves could also be reintroduced from healthy, genetically diverse populations either from the mainland or elsewhere in the country (some areas are viewed as "over populated," at least in terms of minimizing human-wildlife conflict in fringe areas).
What complicates all of these decisions, in addition to uncertainty about what will versus what could happen, is the fact that Isle Royale is a designated Wilderness, where human intervention is meant to be limited. What that means in practice varies (humans occupied and mined the island, have caused climate change, have introduced illness and other species), but generally means that there will be minimal intervention going forward, regardless of what has happened in the past. This can be contrasted with (and in some ways was a response in the 1960s to) the "Disney-fication" of some of the more popular and iconic national parks, that are actively managed to generate certain views and experiences and provide certain amenities (again, this is a side issue, but for a much longer exploration of the issue, read my undergraduate thesis on it here). My take, which appears to be in line with the current NPS position and that of many scientists, is one of "wait and see." While there are potential harms to allowing wolves to disappear and moose numbers to increase, there is also the question of what it means to return the island to a "natural" state. Should the moose also be removed and caribou and lynx reintroduced to restore the fauna of the 1800s? Should all of them be restored? While any decision, including the decision not to act, will have consequences, it seems most in line with the spirit of the island, and island ecosystems generally, to let things play out as they will, though if a moose crisis truly appears, it can be revisited (including hunting, which isn't categorically prohibited in Wilderness, though it is in National Parks).
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Riparian Buffer Analysis
A while ago I wrote about buffer zones, water quality, and agriculture. This is a quick update on that. I've been working on a research project that looked at different types of imagery analysis to determine if there is a good way to identify potential violators for inspection or closer monitoring. The short answer is, not the way I did it but there probably is a way, it just isn't likely worth the extra time and cost. Visual inspection of imagery is relatively easy, fast, and accurate enough (and much cheaper than some of the other program-based alternatives). I've written it up formally, available upon request, but thought I'd post an annotated figure that gives the general idea of the methods and findings.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
EarthEngine
This post isn't really about parks, land use, property, or any particular story or issue. Rather, it's just a short entry about one of my favorite sites/internet toys: EarthEngine. This site is a Google production, with government and academic collaborators (I believe), that has taken lots of satellite imagery (and other data as well that you can explore) from the almost forty year history of the global imaging program and stitched them together (with other data fusion techniques to smooth, blend, and remove errors, clouds, and missing data) to create time lapse videos of change on the Earth's surface. It might not show the exact state of the land at any given time, but it clearly shows general trends, and in some cases (it provides some highlights/lowlights) the differences can be striking, alarming, amazing, and/or depressing.
While most people use it out of curiosity, it does have significant research and policy-informing uses as well. With it, it is possible to see rapid deforestation, the progression of coal mining, rapid urbanization, and changes in river flow. It does have some pre-loaded time lapse examples that are particularly striking, but after viewing them it's almost addictive to go looking for more areas of personal interest. I haven't personally used any of the other data features it has, but I am certainly intrigued and thought it would be worth mentioning here for anyone else interested in the things I write about.
While most people use it out of curiosity, it does have significant research and policy-informing uses as well. With it, it is possible to see rapid deforestation, the progression of coal mining, rapid urbanization, and changes in river flow. It does have some pre-loaded time lapse examples that are particularly striking, but after viewing them it's almost addictive to go looking for more areas of personal interest. I haven't personally used any of the other data features it has, but I am certainly intrigued and thought it would be worth mentioning here for anyone else interested in the things I write about.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Polymet and Sulfide Mining
Minnesota has a long history of mining. However, most of that has historically been for iron from the state's large Banded Iron Formation deposits in the northeast portion of the state. That industry has been in general decline for a variety of economic and demographic reasons, and there is far less mining in the state than there used to be. Enter Polymet (and a few other entities like Twin Metals). These companies want to come into the state and engage in hard rock mining for copper, nickel, zinc, cobalt, and other precious and semi-precious metals. This is a very different and far more destructive form of mining that has a history of water pollution (due to the reaction of sulfides in the parent rock with air and water when exposed). Given the incredibly sensitive nature of the wetland heavy, hydrologically complex area, this is an incredibly dangerous and ill-advised plan.
Mining is a legally complex industry that also happens to have a number of privileges. First, mineral rights are what is called a "dominant estate." This means that the owner of the mineral rights (in Minnesota this is often, but not always, the state itself) has the right to explore and develop the deposits with reasonable use of the surface. While the law in Minnesota is less developed than in other states, particularly those with large oil and gas industries, the majority rule (most states have adopted) allow the use of any portion of the surface that is appurtenant to the development. This includes access roads, drilling and development pads, the harvesting of timber, the redirection of surface water, and the "reasonable" appropriation of other surface assets. While it does not allow for the outright destruction or eviction of a surface owner or tenant, development actions can sometimes result in a constructive eviction or total occupation. Whether this is allowed or actionable depends on state law and the exact facts of each situation.
Second, mineral rights are almost impossible to develop, economically, without pooling. Isolated or small parcels are generally uneconomical to develop either due to logistics or due to the efficiencies of scale required to support the large capital investment required to open a mine. This means that a mining company will often work with multiple mineral owners to acquire all of the parcels required. This creates a patchwork of interest holders that have all sold or leased their rights to the same company. It also provides an opportunity to prevent development by withholding or blocking transfer of rights held by a major or critically located rights holder. This is what may be happening with Twin Metals, which hopes to open a sulfide mine three miles from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but was recently opposed by Governor Mark Dayton. While this would only affect state mineral rights, it could be enough to render the project uneconomical and kill it.
So where are we with Polymet? The mine has been in the works for years, and has been steadily losing public support as people learn more about the large potential consequences and small economic benefits. What was recently approved was not the mine itself. Rather it was the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the required land swap that would trade state land to be mined for private land outside the mining area. While not entirely unexpected given Gov. Dayton's recent comments, it is disappointing. It has also been a long process, with an initial review by the EPA outright rejected in 2009 as inadequate (and portions of the current review still awaiting Army Corps of Engineers review). This will almost certainly be subject to litigation as the project moves into its permitting phase (which will also be lengthy and have its own litigation fights). It is also possible that the project dies for lack of funding. Lower copper prices, a money-losing parent company, and a risk-heavy, speculative business model all make the project a financially unstable proposition. It is possible that additional regulatory and litigation costs in both time and dollars could be enough to sink the project. And even if that is not enough, there is still the matter of the mine reclamation bonding...
Mine reclamation bonds, in theory, are money that is put up by a company before construction begins to fund the closure, remediation, and perpetual treatment of a site. They are almost always required in modern mining after a history of companies abandoning mines, closing them without cleaning up, or going bankrupt. There are also well-documented examples of bad actors with poor records claiming a need to resume production in order to fund health, safety, and environmental compliance. These problems have resulted in mines becoming toxic, polluted wastelands, many of which ended up on the federal Superfund National Priorities List, including some of the most (in)famous. The problem with reclamation bonds is that they are very difficult to set. The state has hired an environmental consulting firm to determine the required level of funding required for the cleanup insurance fund. I wish them the best of luck, but their task is almost certainly hopeless. While some costs can be estimated based on past results, practices, and known costs from similar projects, there are many others that are unknowable or have huge uncertainty ranges. The first problem is understanding the hydrology itself. Northern Minnesota is an incredibly complex and interconnected area with lots of braided streams, wetlands, overland flow, and mysterious water courses that apparently disappear. I am incredibly skeptical that it is possible to model such an area with enough confidence to arrive at a good cost estimate for perpetual treatment. And even when the hydrology is modeled correctly, estimates of actual water treatment levels required have been notoriously bad. Following all of the analysis and uncertainty, the setting of actual bond values has also been problematic. This is true whether the mining is for coal (regulated differently) or is hard rock mining (like in the case of Polymet). Around the world, mining bonds have proved inadequate and left local, regional, and national governments responsible for massive, perpetual cleanup costs.
So, there are still many opportunities to stop the Polymet mine. They have only had the state approve their EIS for the land swap. The federal EPA and ACE still need to sign off, the EIS then needs to survive litigation. After that, while they would have the right to extract their mineral rights, they would still be subject to (ideally) strict (and expensive) regulations and permitting requirements. Each of which can be another good stage for opposing the project, litigating, or imposing public and environmental conditions on the company's behavior. The surety bond process will also be a good opportunity to impose costs on the project, and history has shown that it is probably not possible to demand enough money up front, so a strong public push for high numbers could be very helpful. Finally, it is possible that the project collapses under its own weight, with uncertain finances and high costs. The longer the process can be drawn out, the more likely this is to happen. So get involved, write to the Governor and legislature, and provide feedback on the bonding and permitting process. Every little piece helps. Together we can stop this grave threat to a unique and vulnerable place that has so far been preserved for the benefit of all Minnesotans. It would be a shame to sell that out for a handful of dollars a few temporary jobs.
Mining is a legally complex industry that also happens to have a number of privileges. First, mineral rights are what is called a "dominant estate." This means that the owner of the mineral rights (in Minnesota this is often, but not always, the state itself) has the right to explore and develop the deposits with reasonable use of the surface. While the law in Minnesota is less developed than in other states, particularly those with large oil and gas industries, the majority rule (most states have adopted) allow the use of any portion of the surface that is appurtenant to the development. This includes access roads, drilling and development pads, the harvesting of timber, the redirection of surface water, and the "reasonable" appropriation of other surface assets. While it does not allow for the outright destruction or eviction of a surface owner or tenant, development actions can sometimes result in a constructive eviction or total occupation. Whether this is allowed or actionable depends on state law and the exact facts of each situation.
Second, mineral rights are almost impossible to develop, economically, without pooling. Isolated or small parcels are generally uneconomical to develop either due to logistics or due to the efficiencies of scale required to support the large capital investment required to open a mine. This means that a mining company will often work with multiple mineral owners to acquire all of the parcels required. This creates a patchwork of interest holders that have all sold or leased their rights to the same company. It also provides an opportunity to prevent development by withholding or blocking transfer of rights held by a major or critically located rights holder. This is what may be happening with Twin Metals, which hopes to open a sulfide mine three miles from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but was recently opposed by Governor Mark Dayton. While this would only affect state mineral rights, it could be enough to render the project uneconomical and kill it.
So where are we with Polymet? The mine has been in the works for years, and has been steadily losing public support as people learn more about the large potential consequences and small economic benefits. What was recently approved was not the mine itself. Rather it was the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the required land swap that would trade state land to be mined for private land outside the mining area. While not entirely unexpected given Gov. Dayton's recent comments, it is disappointing. It has also been a long process, with an initial review by the EPA outright rejected in 2009 as inadequate (and portions of the current review still awaiting Army Corps of Engineers review). This will almost certainly be subject to litigation as the project moves into its permitting phase (which will also be lengthy and have its own litigation fights). It is also possible that the project dies for lack of funding. Lower copper prices, a money-losing parent company, and a risk-heavy, speculative business model all make the project a financially unstable proposition. It is possible that additional regulatory and litigation costs in both time and dollars could be enough to sink the project. And even if that is not enough, there is still the matter of the mine reclamation bonding...
Mine reclamation bonds, in theory, are money that is put up by a company before construction begins to fund the closure, remediation, and perpetual treatment of a site. They are almost always required in modern mining after a history of companies abandoning mines, closing them without cleaning up, or going bankrupt. There are also well-documented examples of bad actors with poor records claiming a need to resume production in order to fund health, safety, and environmental compliance. These problems have resulted in mines becoming toxic, polluted wastelands, many of which ended up on the federal Superfund National Priorities List, including some of the most (in)famous. The problem with reclamation bonds is that they are very difficult to set. The state has hired an environmental consulting firm to determine the required level of funding required for the cleanup insurance fund. I wish them the best of luck, but their task is almost certainly hopeless. While some costs can be estimated based on past results, practices, and known costs from similar projects, there are many others that are unknowable or have huge uncertainty ranges. The first problem is understanding the hydrology itself. Northern Minnesota is an incredibly complex and interconnected area with lots of braided streams, wetlands, overland flow, and mysterious water courses that apparently disappear. I am incredibly skeptical that it is possible to model such an area with enough confidence to arrive at a good cost estimate for perpetual treatment. And even when the hydrology is modeled correctly, estimates of actual water treatment levels required have been notoriously bad. Following all of the analysis and uncertainty, the setting of actual bond values has also been problematic. This is true whether the mining is for coal (regulated differently) or is hard rock mining (like in the case of Polymet). Around the world, mining bonds have proved inadequate and left local, regional, and national governments responsible for massive, perpetual cleanup costs.
So, there are still many opportunities to stop the Polymet mine. They have only had the state approve their EIS for the land swap. The federal EPA and ACE still need to sign off, the EIS then needs to survive litigation. After that, while they would have the right to extract their mineral rights, they would still be subject to (ideally) strict (and expensive) regulations and permitting requirements. Each of which can be another good stage for opposing the project, litigating, or imposing public and environmental conditions on the company's behavior. The surety bond process will also be a good opportunity to impose costs on the project, and history has shown that it is probably not possible to demand enough money up front, so a strong public push for high numbers could be very helpful. Finally, it is possible that the project collapses under its own weight, with uncertain finances and high costs. The longer the process can be drawn out, the more likely this is to happen. So get involved, write to the Governor and legislature, and provide feedback on the bonding and permitting process. Every little piece helps. Together we can stop this grave threat to a unique and vulnerable place that has so far been preserved for the benefit of all Minnesotans. It would be a shame to sell that out for a handful of dollars a few temporary jobs.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Bike Lanes and Parking
I live on the East Side of Saint Paul in a neighborhood that is filled with public parks and has extensive winter ski/summer bike trails. However, these trails are not well connected to Downtown Saint Paul or the rest of the Twin Cities bicycle network. This makes bicycle commuting a challenge and also reduces the amount of recreational cyclists who visit the area. This should be changing. The city Public Works Department has announced that it intends to put in bike lanes on Upper Afton Road this summer as part of a resurfacing project. Because of the proposed changes to the parking set up, a community meeting was held this past Thursday and a public comment period is now open before a hearing and vote by the City Council later this spring.
I made a point to attend this meeting because I am both a bike commuter and recreational cyclist and knew that someone needed to speak for the rest of the neighborhood. Upon arriving at the meeting, it was largely as I had expected: most of the attendees were residents of the affected street and almost all of them were vehemently opposed to bike lanes, to loss of parking, or to both. This was not a particularly rational view because, as someone who bikes and drives that street daily, I have come to the same conclusion as the city parking survey, specifically that there is very little street parking utilization in general, so very little will be "lost" by the residents. Their opposition, therefor, struck me as a product of emotion, entitlement, misunderstanding, prejudice, and irrationality.
Some opposed residents were just not good at logic and listening. They continued to bring up unrelated issues, unrelated streets, or issues that the bike lanes would help resolve (like speeding, bike lanes make a road seem narrower which has been demonstrated to lead to lower speeds). Fortunately the city planning people, neighborhood council members, and City Councilwoman were all very patient and repeatedly explained the benefits for these people.
The less rational, more emotional, and occasionally prejudiced residents were far more difficult to deal with. They tended to have stereotypes about bicyclists. They had unfounded beliefs about level of usage (both of parking and bike lanes). And had a number of other unrelated complaints about how it would be paid for (via wheelage fee, not special assessment) and land values/property taxes (if anything, they should go up with a bike friendly neighborhood). There were also some very weird, barely concealed racist elements, especially when an elderly crank started ranting about how he "paid a lot of taxes" and then the city "stole" one of his parking spots to put a bus stop in and now is taking away the others for bike lanes. His digression on the "whiskey bottles" and major transit center that the buses service was an appallingly low level of discourse that marked him pretty clearly as an entitled, racist, obstructionist who likely sincerely felt that he owned the street in front of his home (despite the fact that it belongs to the city and therefor all of its residents). This belief in ownership of parking is understandable, but wrong, and street planning decisions need to be made with the best interest of an entire community in mind. Indeed, that is why Saint Paul has an extensive and detailed bike plan for developing bicycle infrastructure so that it might someday catch up with Minneapolis and its enviable bike culture. While not everyone is happy, usually bike lanes come to be seen as a benefit and the controversy quickly fades away.
So, yes to bike lanes: better commuting infrastructure, safer way for kids to get to school and playground (both of which are on the proposed path, movement toward a more integrated recreation network, safer streets, better property values. No to excess on street parking which has myriad problems and causes many more. And really, the issue isn't the biking (or the buses, or the racism), it's the weird American relationship with cars and the places we put them.
As some of the anger I witnessed at the meeting shows, people have often irrational beliefs and emotional responses to parking issues. They feel entitled to public space in front of their home, to free parking when they shop and run errands, and are often oblivious to the explicit and latent economic and environmental costs of the excess of, often empty, paved space, much of which is mandated by city building and zoning codes.
In addition to the carbon output of cars in commute, there are additional carbon costs just from circling a block looking for a meter or a space, especially in areas where parking is under priced (a subsidy to businesses at the public expense). Furthermore, parking is the largest land use in a city, and allowing it to be free greatly influences the transportation choices people make (with both economic and carbon costs imposed). As mentioned above, much of it is legally required, even if it sits empty on supposedly huge demand days. Some places are starting to rethink what parking lots can be, either by redesigning them or by adding supplementary secondary uses (as solar farms, drainage areas, or tree-lined grids). For much more on parking lots, I highly recommend this entire series from Sightline (much of which has also appeared on Grist).
As for my local parking issues, Saint Paul has finally moved into the world of thirty years ago and decided that it will start charging for parking at night, begin using event rates in certain areas, and expanding meters to previously free areas that are high traffic. While each is a small step, when put together they will make progress toward rationalizing the use of one of the city's largest public properties (its streets) and generate much needed revenue for infrastructure and other public works projects. If it also encourages people to use more environmentally sound transportation methods or to take advantage of the expanding bicycle infrastructure, even better.
I made a point to attend this meeting because I am both a bike commuter and recreational cyclist and knew that someone needed to speak for the rest of the neighborhood. Upon arriving at the meeting, it was largely as I had expected: most of the attendees were residents of the affected street and almost all of them were vehemently opposed to bike lanes, to loss of parking, or to both. This was not a particularly rational view because, as someone who bikes and drives that street daily, I have come to the same conclusion as the city parking survey, specifically that there is very little street parking utilization in general, so very little will be "lost" by the residents. Their opposition, therefor, struck me as a product of emotion, entitlement, misunderstanding, prejudice, and irrationality.
Some opposed residents were just not good at logic and listening. They continued to bring up unrelated issues, unrelated streets, or issues that the bike lanes would help resolve (like speeding, bike lanes make a road seem narrower which has been demonstrated to lead to lower speeds). Fortunately the city planning people, neighborhood council members, and City Councilwoman were all very patient and repeatedly explained the benefits for these people.
The less rational, more emotional, and occasionally prejudiced residents were far more difficult to deal with. They tended to have stereotypes about bicyclists. They had unfounded beliefs about level of usage (both of parking and bike lanes). And had a number of other unrelated complaints about how it would be paid for (via wheelage fee, not special assessment) and land values/property taxes (if anything, they should go up with a bike friendly neighborhood). There were also some very weird, barely concealed racist elements, especially when an elderly crank started ranting about how he "paid a lot of taxes" and then the city "stole" one of his parking spots to put a bus stop in and now is taking away the others for bike lanes. His digression on the "whiskey bottles" and major transit center that the buses service was an appallingly low level of discourse that marked him pretty clearly as an entitled, racist, obstructionist who likely sincerely felt that he owned the street in front of his home (despite the fact that it belongs to the city and therefor all of its residents). This belief in ownership of parking is understandable, but wrong, and street planning decisions need to be made with the best interest of an entire community in mind. Indeed, that is why Saint Paul has an extensive and detailed bike plan for developing bicycle infrastructure so that it might someday catch up with Minneapolis and its enviable bike culture. While not everyone is happy, usually bike lanes come to be seen as a benefit and the controversy quickly fades away.
So, yes to bike lanes: better commuting infrastructure, safer way for kids to get to school and playground (both of which are on the proposed path, movement toward a more integrated recreation network, safer streets, better property values. No to excess on street parking which has myriad problems and causes many more. And really, the issue isn't the biking (or the buses, or the racism), it's the weird American relationship with cars and the places we put them.
As some of the anger I witnessed at the meeting shows, people have often irrational beliefs and emotional responses to parking issues. They feel entitled to public space in front of their home, to free parking when they shop and run errands, and are often oblivious to the explicit and latent economic and environmental costs of the excess of, often empty, paved space, much of which is mandated by city building and zoning codes.
In addition to the carbon output of cars in commute, there are additional carbon costs just from circling a block looking for a meter or a space, especially in areas where parking is under priced (a subsidy to businesses at the public expense). Furthermore, parking is the largest land use in a city, and allowing it to be free greatly influences the transportation choices people make (with both economic and carbon costs imposed). As mentioned above, much of it is legally required, even if it sits empty on supposedly huge demand days. Some places are starting to rethink what parking lots can be, either by redesigning them or by adding supplementary secondary uses (as solar farms, drainage areas, or tree-lined grids). For much more on parking lots, I highly recommend this entire series from Sightline (much of which has also appeared on Grist).
As for my local parking issues, Saint Paul has finally moved into the world of thirty years ago and decided that it will start charging for parking at night, begin using event rates in certain areas, and expanding meters to previously free areas that are high traffic. While each is a small step, when put together they will make progress toward rationalizing the use of one of the city's largest public properties (its streets) and generate much needed revenue for infrastructure and other public works projects. If it also encourages people to use more environmentally sound transportation methods or to take advantage of the expanding bicycle infrastructure, even better.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Sandpiper Pipeline Delayed
A lot of oil moves around this country, and much of it moves through pipelines. Due to the fracking boom in North Dakota and the expansion of tar sands bitumen mining in Alberta, a lot more has been moving around lately, much of it by rail or truck. All of these transport methods are problematic, but for different reasons (I'm not going to go into the horrible environmental effects of tar sands or fracking or the climate and other impacts of oil and natural gas right now, but the links above should provide a good taste, or the documentary Gasland). Trucks are inherently inefficient ways of moving that quantity of oil (or of anything), with greater risk of accidents per mile traveled and greatest carbon output per ton/mile. Rail is better on some but has other problems, including backlogs and delays as well as a history of spills and explosions. Many have said that these problems both support the expansion of pipeline infrastructure for moving an increased volume of oil.
Pipelines, however, are complicated things. They generally run in segments from a wellhead in an oil field to some kind of collection station. There oil (or bitumen, in the case of tar sands), is often blended with solvents and/or heated and sent into a larger pipeline system for transport to major distribution centers. They might cross private lands, public lands, and lands owned by the pipeline company. They also cross rivers, wetlands, roads, and anything else that happens to be in their path. As long as we have an economy driven by fossil fuels, we will have a pipeline problem. We might not need as many as we have, but all the ones we legitimately need do have to go somewhere (both need and location are important fights). Pipelines also are intrusive, requiring a substantial right-of-way, have a propensity to leak, and are not always well monitored.
So pipelines are a necessary evil, but we certainly don't need to build more of them than is economically justified and we definitely should avoid routing them in places that are environmentally sensitive. Which brings me to Sandpiper. It is a pipeline that would run roughly 300 miles across northern Minnesota from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin. It would run relatively directly through the Lakes Country, a wetland heavy and fragile area, but would be most economical for Enbridge Energy, the oil company that wants to build it. It would also follow an existing pipeline right-of-way for about 75% of its length and the company has easement agreements for access/permission to cross private land with about 95% of the affected properties. There have been some supporters of the direct route, with its risks to the environment and cultural resources, but there have also been critics who sued the Public Utilities Commission over the process demanding that an Environmental Impact Assessment be conducted before issuing a certificate of need.
Last summer, the pipeline opponents won in the Court of Appeals, and the PUC was ordered to conduct an assessment before granting a certificate of need. This is an important development because once a certificate of need is granted it becomes much harder to stop a pipeline. It might be possible to change the route a small amount, but the builder would have a large amount of leverage. This is particularly true here, where Enbridge already had 75% of the route in right-of-way and 95% acquisition of needed easements. Acquiring the remaining 5% would have been a simple matter of exercising eminent domain to claim the right-of-way or easement (and unfortunately for the landowners, Minnesota's "Buy the Farm" law doesn't apply to pipelines, only transmission lines, so the residents and farmers would be forced to live with the pipeline and the company's right of access and perpetual maintenance). The newest PUC action has required final submission of the environmental review, which could take years (especially if it ends up in litigation). This has meant a push back in the estimated completion date for the project. It has also provided a number of new opportunities to kill the pipeline outright, kill it by atrophy of support, or re-route it into less sensitive pathways (which might also kill it). The pipeline could be deemed to great a risk to the State's environment and natural resources. It could be forced to move to a less economically favorable route. It might even lose its economic justification if the price of crude oil continues to stay low and North Dakota's oil fields go into what may be a slowdown or a prolonged slump. All of these would be ways that could stop the pipeline in its tracks, and that is a much easier thing to do before it gets its certificate of need. It does take time, effort, and energy, but it can be done if enough people put in the work. It might also buy enough time to build the political pressure to end the threat entirely.
Pipelines, however, are complicated things. They generally run in segments from a wellhead in an oil field to some kind of collection station. There oil (or bitumen, in the case of tar sands), is often blended with solvents and/or heated and sent into a larger pipeline system for transport to major distribution centers. They might cross private lands, public lands, and lands owned by the pipeline company. They also cross rivers, wetlands, roads, and anything else that happens to be in their path. As long as we have an economy driven by fossil fuels, we will have a pipeline problem. We might not need as many as we have, but all the ones we legitimately need do have to go somewhere (both need and location are important fights). Pipelines also are intrusive, requiring a substantial right-of-way, have a propensity to leak, and are not always well monitored.
So pipelines are a necessary evil, but we certainly don't need to build more of them than is economically justified and we definitely should avoid routing them in places that are environmentally sensitive. Which brings me to Sandpiper. It is a pipeline that would run roughly 300 miles across northern Minnesota from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin. It would run relatively directly through the Lakes Country, a wetland heavy and fragile area, but would be most economical for Enbridge Energy, the oil company that wants to build it. It would also follow an existing pipeline right-of-way for about 75% of its length and the company has easement agreements for access/permission to cross private land with about 95% of the affected properties. There have been some supporters of the direct route, with its risks to the environment and cultural resources, but there have also been critics who sued the Public Utilities Commission over the process demanding that an Environmental Impact Assessment be conducted before issuing a certificate of need.
Last summer, the pipeline opponents won in the Court of Appeals, and the PUC was ordered to conduct an assessment before granting a certificate of need. This is an important development because once a certificate of need is granted it becomes much harder to stop a pipeline. It might be possible to change the route a small amount, but the builder would have a large amount of leverage. This is particularly true here, where Enbridge already had 75% of the route in right-of-way and 95% acquisition of needed easements. Acquiring the remaining 5% would have been a simple matter of exercising eminent domain to claim the right-of-way or easement (and unfortunately for the landowners, Minnesota's "Buy the Farm" law doesn't apply to pipelines, only transmission lines, so the residents and farmers would be forced to live with the pipeline and the company's right of access and perpetual maintenance). The newest PUC action has required final submission of the environmental review, which could take years (especially if it ends up in litigation). This has meant a push back in the estimated completion date for the project. It has also provided a number of new opportunities to kill the pipeline outright, kill it by atrophy of support, or re-route it into less sensitive pathways (which might also kill it). The pipeline could be deemed to great a risk to the State's environment and natural resources. It could be forced to move to a less economically favorable route. It might even lose its economic justification if the price of crude oil continues to stay low and North Dakota's oil fields go into what may be a slowdown or a prolonged slump. All of these would be ways that could stop the pipeline in its tracks, and that is a much easier thing to do before it gets its certificate of need. It does take time, effort, and energy, but it can be done if enough people put in the work. It might also buy enough time to build the political pressure to end the threat entirely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)