Minneapolis Parks Funding

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.

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).

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.

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.

Yet another news roundup

More substantive posts are coming, I promise, now that work is back to a normal level.

This is an interesting development, and one I think is very promising. The federal government is the largest landowner in the nation, and the biggest consumer of energy. Within that, the Department of Defense is by far the biggest, representing 80 percent of all federal energy use and 1 percent of the entire nation's. It has also made clear its desire to move in a more sustainable direction for both economic and security reasons. So it is very promising that they are seriously discussing developing large scale solar installations on DoD lands, many of which are already "disturbed" and therefor unlikely to harbor endangered or threatened wildlife. Whether used to satisfy base needs or sold to the grid (which would require very little new infrastructure as bases already well connected), it would be an excellent way to scale up the idea of the parking lot "solar grove" that has been proposed by other would-be renewables developers. Also, as a massive landowner and supplier/purchaser and research funder, the DoD would be able to leverage a huge gain in solar efficiency and productivity with comparatively small (when looking at private R&D) investment.

Farms (and logging/silviculture) have long been a source of water pollution that is difficult to regulate under the Clean Water Act. CAFOs (feedlots) are generally considered point sources, but the the others generally are not subject to the same permitting and data requirements and so relatively little is known about specific contributions and even less is often done to reduce agricultural runoff, a serious problem that causes huge dead zones at the mouths of major rivers worldwide. While it is only a tentative first step, and doesn't go very far, it is good to see that Minnesota is making a small effort to induce farmers to clean up and reduce their runoff voluntarily. Count me as a skeptic. I hope that it works, I really do, and that it proves to be a wildly successful program that can be a model for other states, but I strongly believe that it will generally be a disappointment for a few reasons. First, the funding is far too low to have any major impact. Second, the funding is uncertain going forward; there really isn't any long-term commitment to keeping this program running. Third, enforcement will be difficult without either more staff to do compliance testing or much better data collection with stiff penalties on those trying to game the system. Good for Minnesota for making a small effort, but it has the ability to do so much more given its position as a 100% headwaters state.

Are you sick of motherfucking snakes in the motherfucking Everglades? (I apologize for that.) If so, you will be happy to learn that the Fish and Wildlife Service is officially listing four species of constrictors as "injurious" and prohibiting their import, export, or transport and/or sale across state lines. While it won't result in the pythons in the Everglades magically dying (though recent cold weather in Florida is certainly a helpful occurrence) it will create a ban with some serious enforcement teeth. From the moment the regulations become active, it will be a crime under the Lacey Act to buy, sell, bring into the US, or transport across a state boundary, any of the four species listed (Burmese python, northern and southern African python, and yellow anaconda). That in and of itself is a positive development. We haven't gotten rid of the invaders yet but we are have now taken real, enforceable steps to stop making the problem worse.

News Roundup

Kind of a lazy post, I have a series of more substantive topics that I hope to post soon but have been very busy this past month (when I wasn't on vacation in beautiful Arches National Park, which I will write about in depth with pictures soon). I'm hoping to write more frequently this year, maybe making that commitment on the internet will help? We shall see.

Why is it so important to protect open spaces and wild places? Because you never know what you will find there. The latest discovery is a brand new species of snake, the Matilda's Horned Viper, recently discovered in Tanzania (the exact location is being withheld from publication due to the rarity of the species and the threat posed by a sudden rush of collectors, trophy hunters, and other miscreants to what appears to be a very small population. Most new discoveries are small organisms, insects or microbes, but there are still large species that turn up from time to time.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has officially extended a moratorium on new mining claims around the Grand Canyon. I wrote about this issue last year in a piece critiquing media coverage of environmental issues. I'm not at all surprised by his decision, though he certainly didn't do much to publicize or celebrate it. In fact it looks like he is trying to hide it based on the timing (right before the New Hampshire primary when all media attention will be directed elsewhere). Look for various mining interests and their shills allies in Congress to continue complaining about this and making absurd claims about jobs created, minimal environmental impacts, and other outright falsehoods.

And speaking of hiding from the media while doing something laudable, today President Obama visited the EPA to give a campaign speech pep talk to agency employees on the importance of the work they do and the value of a clean environment. From the brevity and content it sounds to me very much like test driving campaign talking points for use against a republican opponent who will have spent years trying to be more anti-environment and anti-science than any other and not like a president actually praising an agency and its workers (remember, he let his Law and Economics friend and OIRA head Cass Sunstein kill the proposed smog rule based on industry lies and exaggerations about economic impact and without properly considering the value of health improved and lives saved, not to mention jobs created via regulatory forcing (it takes a lot of research and manpower to update all those factories and plants or replace unsustainable capacity)).

This is a light, yet interesting, article about what one of John Muir's great-great-grandsons is up to with the family name.

Yet another reminder that even once renewable energy projects are built or capacity installed it still needs to be connected to the grid and that can be a hassle. Sometimes its logistics, sometimes its infrastructure, and sometimes its corporate resistance or regulatory turf battles. The point is, renewables aren't like Field of Dreams, it takes more than just building it for the power to come.

Update 1/12: Today's NYT has an op-ed today by two fisheries scientists about some of the problems with the General Mining Law and some very needed updates and safeguards. There's not a chance of any of them happening any time soon, but it's important to keep raising these issues and building awareness for when conditions are more favorable. What struck me is how many of their proposals would bring hard rock mining into much closer alignment with coal and how that mining process is managed (the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is a much more effective statute that raises more revenue for the sovereign, allows more land use flexibility and prioritization, and has much stronger and more effective environmental safeguards. If SMCRA were simply expanded to cover all mining that would be perhaps the biggest public land reform since FLPMA, if not ever and would be a huge accomplishment).

Trees in the City

I have a backlog of pieces I've been meaning to write about and a number of them all share a theme: urban trees. Many cities, particularly dense ones like New York (especially Manhattan) or sprawling, concrete filled ones like Los Angeles, have a pronounced lack of greenery and what trees do exist are often sickly, ugly, unkempt, or isolated. Often they are also pollution tolerant species like the honey locust and Norway maple or evolutionary survivors like the ginkgo. This leads to uninteresting monoculture landscapes that can be more depressing than a barren street on its own. It also can lead to the spread of non-native species which can become invasive. Lake of greenery and open spaces generally can also contribute to the heat island effect, in which paved and built up spaces absorb more heat during the day which is then radiated back in the evening leading to higher temperatures (both minimums and maximums) than in surrounding areas that are kept cooler by evapotranspiration, higher albedo, and other effects.

First up is a story from China this summer. China, as we all know, is a rapidly growing nation that is quickly urbanizing and converting any open space in and around its cities into factories, offices, housing, and business uses. The nature of the Communist Party's rule also means that any action is essentially indisputable and impossible to block. That, combined with the fact that China has a weak and nearly non-existent environmental movement, means that if some trees are going to be cut in the name of progress, nothing is going to change that. In the city of Nanjing, however, local activists were able to save at least a few of the cities enormous wutong trees from a proposed subway expansion. While an incomplete victory, the subway will still be built and a large number of the trees will still be removed, it is progress for a notoriously single-minded, authoritarian, and anti-environment nation.

Moving back to the US, there are two pieces I see as companions, of a sort. New York City is trying to plant 1,000,000 trees to green up the city. In doing so it has taken an approach of too many, too soon, too haphazardly, at least in the views of some critics. While I think that the city has a noble purpose that is generally to be applauded, there are some elements of the program that are potentially troubling. Some are mentioned in the article and are trivial (neighbors complaining, seriously people, who doesn't like trees?), others are more serious, at least financially (roots buckling sidewalks). A more substantial criticism is that trees are being planted at the wrong time or year or in the wrong place and are therefore struggling or dying. While I am not a botanist or arborist and the article does little to resolve the he said/she said, from what I know of the Bloomberg administration it would not surprise me if the mayor just decreed that trees be planted and that they be planted by a date certain, details be damned. Two additional problems were not mentioned in the article. One is that as the climate changes, so will the suitability of the urban environment for certain species. Trees live a long time and care should be taken to select trees that are fit to survive in both the present and warmer, wetter city of the future so as to mitigate future losses and replacement costs. This was one element of Chicago's climate change plan (which I hope to write about in the future in more depth). The other is that trees, like most organisms, have a finite lifespan and planting huge numbers of trees at the same time can set up future problems, like those seen in Atlanta where drought and development pressures have combined with age to kill off a huge number of the city's trees.

And finally, a fully positive story about rescue and rediscovery. The Franciscan manzanita was long thought extinct in the wild until it was discovered growing in the middle of a traffic island in San Francisco's Presidio district in the path of a road project. The project was suspended and the plant was moved to a more protected location within the park (click here to see a picture of the process). Now it is eligible for protection as an endangered species and botanists are looking for cuttings in botanical gardens and nurseries to plant near the wild one in the hopes of fostering enough genetic diversity to create a self-sustaining recovery population.

Roadless Rules Upheld

A panel of the Tenth Circuit has upheld (unanimously) the Forest Service's Clinton era roadless rule against a challenge by the state of Wyoming. The decision is here (but be warned that it is 120 pages long). This is a pretty big deal and a big win for conservationists, environmentalists, outdoors enthusiasts, and pretty much anyone who doesn't want to see small roads turn into bigger ones turn into major logging/mining/drilling projects turn into "well, it's already so developed what is the problem with going a little further" slippery slopes. It is also likely to severely limit, in theory if not in practice because many ORV users regularly flout restrictions, damage from off-road vehicles, snow mobiles, and 4x4s. If you would like a more digestible summary of the case you can read it in the NYT though it is only a shadow of the bigger issue.

Four Quick Things

First a quick update: California's legislature has passed the ban on shark fins that I wrote about a few weeks ago. It is quite likely that Governor Jerry Brown signs it.

Second, Nicholas Kristof wrote a nice piece for the NYT on Sunday that brings up a point that is not discussed enough, namely the importance of actual outdoors experiences (wilderness or not) in building a constituency and support for environmental and conservation measures. While he doesn't get into the more complicated questions of socioeconomic privilege, class, and cultural constructions of nature that are increasingly present in American society (which I briefly mentioned near the end of this post) it is nice to see a major columnist talking about this often neglected aspect of environmental movement building.

Third, a student from my alma mater has written a very nice piece for the NYT's Green Blog about his experience with the Student Conservation Association working in the wilderness of Nevada's Basin and Range country. I have a number of friends who have done summer programs through them (or with state level equivalents) and all have loved the experience. If you get the chance you should look into it.

Finally, the weirdly named BOEMRE has apparently "accomplished what it set out to do" in cleaning up the regulatory mess left by the corrupt MMS and will be disbanded into other divisions of the Interior Department including the even newer (and less awkward) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Only time will tell if this division makes the agency more effective at carrying out its mandates and less susceptible to industry capture.

Polar Bear News

Two pieces of news about polar bears (Ursus maritimus). The first is some good news in an ongoing saga: Charles Monnett, the scientist who documented cases of drowned polar bears and was subsequently suspended by his agency, BOEMRE (the new acronym, since the Deepwater Horizon proved the final disgrace for a notoriously corrupt agency (discussed here)) has been reinstated from administrative leave. While investigations continue into why he was initially suspended and he will not be returning to the same duties, he has at least been temporarily cleared. This is something to keep watching as it develops though I wouldn't expect it to move with any great speed.

The other is much more unfortunate. A security guard working for BP shot and killed a polar bear with what appears to have been an explosive round when it wandered near a worker camp. While BP claims that the bear was killed by mistake and that the guard believed he was firing a rubber bullet to ward off the bear, it is a positive sign that the Fish and Wildlife Service is taking it seriously enough to do a preliminary investigation. There is nothing in the piece to indicate that anything other than what BP claims is the case, but polar bears are a threatened species and it is important to determine the exact circumstances of the death, whether it was preventable (assuming it was unintentional), and whether it was justified.

Threatened and endangered species receive a large amount of protection from the Endangered Species Act. There is a broadly construed ban on any kind of harm to individuals without a permit, and even then allowances are made only for specific numbers taken in specific ways (for example, a dam might be allowed to "take" 2,000 salmon via turbine action per year or a construction project might be permitted to take a nesting pair of owls via habitat disruption). While there is an exemption for lethal force when necessary to defend human life, that does not appear to be the case here, and scaring it off would have been the appropriate and justified choice for the safety of workers and the bear. The polar bear was listed as threatened due to loss of habitat from climate change and much has been written about that threat to the bear including how best to respond to protect it. However, once listed as threatened, unless specific exemptions have been written into the listing rule, the species is broadly protected from any type of prohibited action. In other words: once listed, it doesn't matter why. Any harm is prohibited harm, even if it isn't the kind that caused the listing. This is another piece that bears (unfortunate pun that wouldn't happen in many other languages) watching though I expect it to disappear into the ether without much closure.

Sharks and Rhinos

Last week I saw two articles that I thought would be interesting to juxtapose. The first is a piece from the NYTimes on the increase in the theft of rhino horns as trade in legal horns has become more difficult (the increased CITES and EU restrictions have also apparently increased poaching, but are on the whole a positive. Rather than loosen restrictions it would be best to increase commitments and support for conservation and anti-poaching forces and economic development to alleviate the poverty that makes poaching and trafficking a desirable way to earn a living). The second was a short piece in the LATimes about the advancement of a ban on the sale of shark fins through a legislative committee in the state senate.

First off, some housekeeping: I am not a vegetarian, though I do try to eat responsibly. I also am not opposed to hunting or fishing generally (and have partaken in those activities), but especially not as game management techniques where other top predators have been removed or when dealing with invasive species. I also do not want to get into a big philosophical or ethical discussion about the propriety of having all these specimens of endangered animals floating around the developed world. Yes, specimens are necessary for scientific study and the expansion of knowledge (and increased awareness of biodiversity). Yes, more specimens were taken in the days of colonialism than were necessary, and for less than noble motives. But they were and we have to move forward from that point. You can't return a stuffed rhino to the wild, any parallel to the Elgin Marbles is superficial and ultimately false.

Now, onto the actual comparison. Both rhino horn and shark fin soup are traditional Chinese medicines and foods. That's pretty well established. However, there is much more general condemnation of the former than the latter. While use of rhino horn is portrayed as ridiculous, observe the outlandish list of purported powers it has, "aphrodisiac," cure for cancer coupled with the commentary from a scientist that ingestion would be "about as healthful 'as chewing on your fingernails.'" There is no room for cultural differences. It is represented as dangerous, destructive, and misguided, based on superstition not on science.

Contrast that with the proposed ban on shark fins. While there is already a ban in other western states, the battle in California is getting heated as it constitutes a much larger economy than its Pacific neighbors. In the short piece on finning, the dispute is framed as conservationists versus those seeking to preserve their cultural heritage (whether perceived or constructed, shark fin was long a food for the elites in certain regions and has only become more widely consumed as technology and economic development have reduced costs and increased incomes). While the tone of the article does convey a bit of he said/she said, it does ultimately appear to come down on the side of science and conservation, strengthened by the quote from a state assemblyman who is originally from China, grew up with shark fin soup, and has since come to reject it (as have a number of other prominent Chinese people including Yao Ming). The accompanying photograph illustrating a shark finning vessel, lines strung up with fins (sharks presumably lying dead and bleeding on the ocean floor) also serves to make the point: finning is brutal, cruel, and damaging to the health of ocean ecosystems (as well as to the sharks). It's also incredibly unhealthy for human consumption. As top predators, sharks accumulate toxins such as mercury at very high levels via biomagnification. In many species these toxins can reach hazardous levels.

I know that's a lot of material to pull out of a blog item, but I thought it made for an interesting comparison, and one that gets back to one of the things I want this blog to explore: what is the real value of nature and the biodiversity of life? Does it have its own inherent value? Is it simply a social construct? Does one culture or society's value or construction take precedence over another's? Should it? What are the processes and circumstances that lead to a change in these constructions and how can they be enabled or impeded?

None of these have clear answers, and answering one might destabilizing your answer to another, but they are definitely worth thinking about. I try to keep them in mind as I go through life (even when I'm not writing here, which I should do more often) and I hope you do too.

Mining and the Media

A few weeks ago Interior Secretary Ken Salazar extended a moratorium on new mining claims on federal lands surrounding the Grand Canyon. The effect of this was to temporarily extend the suspension of new claims he imposed two years ago for an additional six months pending (unnecessary) additional scientific review. The ultimate outcome is likely to be the withdrawal of these lands for 20 years (which is the longest they can be removed from availability under current law without additional statutory action). This is a significant event because it will close off most of the threat of uranium and other hard rock mining in that area. There are a few existing, but inactive, mines that might be allowed to reopen (it will depend on whether they are deemed abandoned claims), and a few other new claims that might be perfected, but most of the claims that were filed near the end of the Bush presidency are likely to be worthless. This is because withdrawals of public lands are always made subject to valid existing rights. However, a right is not valid and existing just by being made. The way hard rock mining works in the United States is that a claimant must show that he or she (or it for corporations) has made an actual discovery of some mineral, has taken steps to physically occupy the land, and that the discovery would actually be economically rational to develop. It is not enough to say "it is likely that there is uranium on this claim" or "we believe uranium is on this claim" or "we want to look for uranium here." If there has not been an actual discovery on the date of withdrawal then the claim is not a prior valid right. (This is relevant to closed mines because if they were closed due to economic reasons, whether commodity price or cost of extraction or some combination, and remained closed for a long enough period, the right might have been abandoned. There is currently litigation over whether the current owners of those interests are able to "revive" their mining claims or if they are now subject to the moratorium).

However, what I am more interested in today is not the actual issue (which, while technically complicated, is fairly easy to give a brief overview of) but how it is covered. National media is generally quite bad at environmental reporting. This is particularly true of the New York Times (the Washington Post rarely even bothers so is hardly worth mentioning) which often reports from its DC or New York desks and relies on email statements (though since this was a DC action it is actually appropriate here). It also often does little to provide background or context for its pieces (its Green blog is generally better but rarely gets published in the print edition, unlike many of its other blogs). The Los Angeles Times does a better job of providing context and background, even in short articles, and relies much less on he said/she said and false equivalencies (lazy journalistic practices common in environmental reporting, most notoriously when discussing climate change). It also often sends reporters to the actual vicinity to do articles (and being located in the West tends to cover more issues in more depth since they are more likely to be relevant to the readership).

What makes this issue such a good one for contrast is that both papers covered a similar event that is fairly easy to explain, with a complicated but generalizable backstory, and predictable views on both sides. Given that, it's stunning to see how different the articles (both short) were in their treatment.

The NYT relied on a summary of Secretary Salazar's statement for a full half of the article, provided a single sentence indicating this was part of a continuing issue, then dove right into discussion of the economic impact on uranium prices and demand (with a nod to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor crisis in Japan, irrelevant as the uranium market is only incidental to the issue in the article). It then spends the remaining half of the article presenting the issue as a standard partisan Democrat/Republican and environmentalist/business dispute. Note how it said that environmentalists had been displeased with Secretary Salazar for earlier decisions and implies that this might appease them. It also finds two Representatives (one of whom did not represent Arizona) to give their opposing take. While I agree with Rep. Grijalva, I find it lazy of the reporter to rely on predictable talking points that could have been about any environmental issue. There was no effort to get additional comments or place either of them in a broader context. There is also no mention whatsoever of the General Mining Act of 1872, which is the driving force behind the issue in the first place. For John Broder, a report nominally on an environmental beat (but who often writes on the DC "goings on") it is a particularly disappointing piece, as if he decided to phone it in.

The LAT did a better (but not perfect) job. It also managed to do this in a much shorter article, indicating that good reporting is not necessarily longer reporting. It starts by coming straight out and saying that a long term withdrawal is the final goal and contextualizes it by reporting on the 2000% increase in claims. It also discusses the reasons people (and not just environmentalists) are opposed to mining: watershed protection, contamination, and aesthetics. It also goes to a bit more effort to get comments. While it, too, solicited comments from both sides, it at least sought out members of interest groups (a local conservationist and a mining industry lobbyist) and said that people and politicians were on both sides. Good job for engaging in slightly better and more thorough reporting. More bonus points for reporting that this is just one of many parks under threat from such activities on its borders (unlike the NYT which allows readers to think this is an isolated incident of interest to only those directly invested in the Grand Canyon). The LAT also ends with a reference to the GML and how it is the source of this and other controversies. While it is a bit trite, omits the source of the relevant controversy, and appears to be an afterthought, at least it is there. More context would be nice, as would weaving it into the actual coverage, but beggars can't be choosers.

Unfortunately the LAT apparently decided that it should remove a reference to the actual issue for final publication, it did appear in the earlier online version, rather than expand and clarify it. Read the final two sentences and compare them to my brief introduction at the top of this post. It wouldn't be that hard to flesh out what was written there to make it informative and correct, but rather than do that the paper axed the paragraph. I suppose that's better than leaving in the misleading and incomplete thought, but it made the final product much weaker and less useful than it could have been.

Overall grades for these articles:
NYT: D
LAT: B-

Park Budgets

Today is the Summer Solstice and the official beginning of summer. Yes the "summer season" began for many a month ago with the observance of Memorial Day, but now there is no denying it. The arrival of summer means many things: barbecues, long days, gardens and fresh produce. It is also a time when many people leave the cities for the "natural" world, visiting state and national parks in great numbers. Yet this year, many people will find these trips either more difficult or impossible. Here in Minnesota we are only ten days away from a potential shutdown of the state government due to inability to pass a budget. This would force all parks to close as there would be no money for rangers, maintenance workers, or any of the other state funded workers necessary to make them work. While many parks do charge fees for admission, campsites, firewood, and other amenities, these are generally not enough to be self-sustaining (especially since the greater the attendance, the higher the costs of maintaining and patrolling the park).

Even states where there is no looming shutdown are cutting park services, raising fees, or even eliminating parks from their systems. While it is understandable in some respects, state budgets are tight and politicians are loath to do responsible things like raise taxes or cut wasteful spending (e.g. prisons, death penalty, foreign wars, agribusiness subsidies), it is still tragic that parks (and the environment generally) are among the first "luxury" items sacrificed in the name of austerity. It is incredibly shortsighted to shortchange protection given the massive value from environmental and ecosystem services. It is also a good way to permanently undermine support for parks and other environmental protection.

We did not always have public parks in this country. Indeed, many parks, going back to the European tradition, were private estates for landed gentry, royalty, and other wealthy and powerful elites. Places they could escape to, especially in the summer, to avoid the crowds, smells, and diseases of summer cities (remember, this was before modern plumbing). It wasn't until the late Nineteenth Century and conservationists like John Muir that the idea of parks for the sake of protecting something special and wild arose. Yet it would be a huge mistake to romanticize this view. Many people know that Muir was deeply involved in the protection granted to Yosemite Valley and that Yellowstone was the first national park in the history of the world. What many don't realize is that they were not established out of some noble or enlightened concern for nature and conservation. Yes, there were conservationists then (both in the modern sense and in the "Wise Use" vein), but there were also monopolists, railroads, and promoters that all saw parks as their next meal ticket. In fact, many parks were established largely to satisfy different railroad interests. The Great Northern had Glacier. The Southern Pacific had the Grand Canyon. Prior to the official formation of the National Park Service, many parks were de facto private entities, monopolized and run by a handful of concessionaires and railroads. Many were concerned that they would be turned into something as tacky and commodified as Niagara Falls.*

This changed with the establishment of the NPS, but ever since that day it has struggled with a dual mandate: to provide access for the public but also to preserve the natural, biological, and historical features that make parks special. In recent years the NPS has erred (rightly) more on the side of preservation for future generations, which increases the recreational burden on state park systems, many of which do not carry such mandates.This increase in traffic has often been met not with increased funding but with slashed budgets. It is not only the NPS that has a massive project backlog.

There is also a new trend toward treating park visitors and the public as "customers" and "consumers" of nature rather than as owners and stewards with a vested interest. This shift is easily seen in the New York Times article linked above on budget cuts. The state of Washington is about to shift to a subscription/membership based funding mechanism that completely eliminates all independent state revenue. While it remains to be seen if this is a viable strategy economically, it is quite dangerous from a policy and perception stand point. I don't want to get into the intricacies of wilderness theory and nature as inherently valuable or only as socially constructed but it is important to understand and emphasize that support for the idea of parks and nature is strongly correlated with the idea that there are a personal interest in and benefit from them. If parks are only supported by those who choose to support them, or are only accessible to those willing and able to pay ever rising admission fees, they will no longer belong to the people but will be more akin to the Gilded Age public in name only parks. As a planner for the Idaho Parks Department was quoted, after all of these shifts in funding, admission fees, and aggressive marketing to middle and upper class park "consumers," "In what way are they state parks anymore?" While I wish the article did more to develop the idea, it's a very good question, and an important one to think about, especially with the summer park season starting up. Are these for everyone or just a select few? Do we all own them and benefit from them or are they the exclusive escape of the privileged? No matter how you choose to use parks (camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, canoeing, skiing, day tripping), you have an interest in the answer to these questions and it's worth thinking about the next time you hear about taxes, budgets, or new fees.

*This isn't filled with hyperlink citations at present, I might be able to set that up at some point, but many are to articles you can only access through an academic subscription. However, if you really care I can provide interested parties with a copy of a seminar paper I wrote a few years ago on the subject that is richly sourced.

Babbitt Speaks

This is not directly park related but it is interesting. Bruce Babbitt was Secretary of the Interior under President Clinton and has impeccable environmental credentials. He is most famous for his roles as the named government defendant in the Sweet Home case that upheld the Endangered Species Act and one of the most important players in the establishment of Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Now he is in the news criticizing President Obama's environmental policies, particularly in the areas of land and water protection/conservation and failure to push back aggressively on disingenuous and dangerous Republican attacks (usually based on lies and other forms of disinformation) on a wide range of environmental issues from oil leases to mountain top removal to fracking to greenhouse gas emissions.

That such a high profile former official would criticize a president of his own party in this direct a manner, even in such a gentle way, is certainly notable. It isn't often (though it is healthy and necessary) that you see this kind of behavior. (Indeed, our discourse on the environment as well as all other issues would be healthier, more productive, and more intellectually consistent and honest if we did have more intraparty criticism based on facts and well-reasoned arguments, but that's a side issue). The main point is that while Obama has done a handful of good things on environmental, natural resources, and public lands issues, on the whole there has been a lot of stalling and evasion, not to mention areas (particularly when it comes to oil drilling) where he is actively damaging the future for negligible short term gain. This should be a wake up call to Obama that the environmental community is not happy with him and will not automatically rise to his aid in 2012. It is likely that some will respond to the "better than the alternative" fear-based argument, but that won't raise nearly as much money or inspire nearly as many door knockers or phone bankers. We'll see what he does (but I don't expect him to change his moderately anti-green behavior any time soon).

Update (June 11): The Los Angeles Times agrees and uses pretty strong language and lots of examples. Unfortunately it is buried in the Saturday paper, but it's still the strongest newspaper castigation I've seen of Obama's weak and cowardly environmental record.

Update II (June 13): The New York Times also agrees though its language is much  more conciliatory to the administration (however, it appears on a Monday so it will get more views). In a related development, the power plant rules that the Op-Ed cites have been delayed again (announced after publication).

DeChristopher Convicted

Tim DeChristopher, the environmental activist who bid on oil and gas leases to prevent development of sensitive tracts near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, was convicted yesterday on both counts (false statements and impeding a federal auction). This is not surprising as he had admitted to the acts and he was barred from discussing his motives. The New York Times' reporter Kirk Johnson asked "Do Motives Matter?" in a blog post about the verdict. Legally, in this case, the answer is no. Without the ability to argue necessity any discussion of his motives, technically speaking, would be irrelevant to proving the charges; the government asked the jury "did he do it?" and reminded them that it didn't matter why. (Aside: motive is almost always irrelevant in criminal prosecutions (though it can be relevant in sentencing), a misconception that is perpetuated by pop culture portrayals of trial. Cops rely on motive in investigations, but in the courtroom it is rarely an element that must be proved).

Mr. Johnson is asking the wrong question. Rather, he should be asking "why was this case brought?" Prosecutorial discretion is the principle that the executive has the right to determine which cases are tried, which suspects tried, and what the priorities of enforcement will be. First, the Obama administration pulled the tracts in question from development, negating the auctions, so there was no harm to the government. Second, his motives were honorable. This is the case of a non-violent student engaging in civil disobedience. That he would be prosecuted and now faces up to 10 years in prison for this is unconscionable, especially from an administration that, despite its abysmal record in many areas, actually has a relatively good (though far from exemplary) record on environmental issues. However, what it comes down to is corporate power and money and, as DeChristopher said after his conviction, "I can't point to many examples where they've sided with future generations over corporate interests." It's just another in a long list of examples of Obama siding with the rich and powerful instead of supporting meaningful systemic reform.

At least he was convicted of dealing only with the Bureau of Livestock and Mining and not the historically (even more) corrupt Minerals Management Service (now Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement). That would have been intolerable. And perhaps he will raise the profile of the continued problems of widespread oil and gas leasing, climate change, and environmental degradation (especially near sensitive lands) and serve as a martyr. The first hero in a long fight.

Things This Week

First off, some sad news. The Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that the eastern cougar subspecies is extinct and should be removed from the Endangered Species List. This isn't particularly surprising. Cougars were largely hunted down as pests, nuisances, and threats to livestock and people in the east long ago. That, combined with the massive destruction of habitat, ever-increasing surburbanization and sprawl, and the fragmentation of what little suitable habitat once existed into ever more isolated biological islands and large predators stand no chance of survival. To tie this in with parks a little bit, While often highly developed and connected to infrastructure, parks can provide protections for core biomes, and when all the public and private stakeholders are on board, can provide the anchor for regional management plans that enable species to have a foothold for recovery from which they can radiate into adjacent suitable areas.

It's also National Invasive Species Awareness Week. This is a worldwide problem that can have widespread economic as well as environmental effects, including in urban areas. Parks are not exempt. They are not sealed biodomes and species, including people and those that we carry with us whether intentionally or not, freely cross their boundaries. Nature doesn't care about arbitrary lines on a map. Of parks I've been to, several have notable invasive species problems. The Everglades have perhaps the most famous invader, the Burmese Python. Certainly it has led to battles with one of the apex predators native to the park, but it has also done damage to endangered species that are already under pressure from water diversion, pollution, and encroachment by a growing Miami metro area.

I didn't see any snakes when I was in the Everglades, but I did see the effects of invasive species in Hawaii. Kahili Ginger is a hardy, widespread, and nasty invader. It crowds out all the native understory flora and is almost impossible to kill except through a plant by plant cut and treat (with herbicides) approach. This meant that in some parts of the rain forest at Hawaii Volcanoes the understory was choked with ginger plants, with hardly any others visible except for the occasional tree. When they are flowering they can be quite pretty, but I'd prefer to see what is supposed to be there. There's beauty in that. There can be a long philosophical debate about how "natural" it is to go around "restoring" a landscape and whether such a landscape is any less artificial than one filled with invasives, attractive or not, deliberately placed or not, but that's not what I'm doing here (I have addressed it elsewhere, as have many others far more knowledgeable than I am). Native species are under enough attack, we don't need to go about making it worse by acting to save noxious pests that damage their range.

Even more damaging to Hawaiian species have been invaders whose effects are generally only visible in the voids they create. Specifically the combination of avian malaria and feral pigs has caused massive destruction of the native bird population, many species of which are on the brink of extinction. Invasives put even more pressure on species already threatened with massive habitat loss.

It's also necessary to watch out for unintended consequences. Rats (another invasive) were a problem in the Virgin Islands (though the main objection at the time was destruction of sugar cane) so plantation managers imported the mongoose from India to control them. This failed because rats are nocturnal and sleep in trees while the mongoose is a daylight hunter. The rats were unaffected and other sensitive species paid the price. So beware solutions that require further solutions, if only it were as easy as Principle Skinner's needle snakes and gorillas solution.

So happy NISAW everyone. And if you see something on that list, I hope it tastes good.

DeChristopher Trial

Tim DeChristopher's trial is being conducted this week. DeChristopher is the environmental activist who prevented oil and gas drilling on lands near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks by bidding on and winning $1.8 million dollars worth of leases on BLM land in 2008. Unfortunately he has been barred by Judge Dee Benson from discussing his motives during his trial. While this is not particularly surprising, it makes it highly likely that he will be convicted. The statutes under which he is being charged require a "knowing" or "intentional" standard and the court rejected his "necessity defense." In other words, it said that even if all the evidence he planned to present in court were believed, it would not meet the requirements to legally justify his actions as preventing a greater harm. In its order barring discussion of necessity, the court held that he could not establish that he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils, that he couldn't show enough of a connection between the leases and the threat of climate change, and that he had other legal alternatives.

At trial, however, his defense team managed to get an allusion to his motivations into the courtroom, though that line of questioning was quickly shut down and the court cleared. Despite being only a brief mention, and even if Judge Benson instructs the jury to disregard, the practical effect is that this idea is now in the minds of the jurors (if it wasn't there already). Whether that is a good or bad thing is certainly an open question (this is Utah we are talking about), but orders to disregard are generally meaningless since one cannot unhear testimony or actively purge ideas. "The jury shall not think of a pink elephant." His defense team's efforts to claim he didn't intend to disrupt the bidding process or knowingly misrepresent himself as a bidder in good faith are less persuasive. "Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse" is something every first year law student is repeatedly told, and while it is often difficult to prove state of mind, the facts (signed document with explicit promises, clear course of action, no plan for payment, personal statements of intent) make the government's burden quite easy to meet.

His best shot at acquittal is through jury nullification: the jury deciding that even though the government has proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt it will not convict him because it feels he has done nothing wrong/is morally justified/otherwise excused. It is perfectly legal for juries to do this, though for obvious reasons the government is careful to keep it quiet and I am sure that in jury selection the prosecutors weeded out most of the environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and other likely sympathizers.

On an unrelated note: the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage has been, as one would expect, fairly biased against DeChristopher. Referring to him as an "admitted monkey-wrencher" and, pejoratively as a "'true believer' of the environmental movement." I suppose this is to be expected of a Utah paper.