ReportWire

Tag: environmental group

  • Plan to kill 450,000 owls creates odd political bedfellows — loggers and environmentalists

    The strange political bedfellows created by efforts to save spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest just got even stranger.

    Already Republican members of Congress were allied with animal rights activists.

    They don’t want trained shooters to kill up to 450,000 barred owls, which are outcompeting northern spotted owls, under a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan approved last year that would unfold over three decades.

    Now, timber interests are aligning with environmentalists in favor of culling the owls.

    Some logging advocates are afraid nixing the plan will slow down timber harvesting. Roughly 2.6 million acres of timberlands in western Oregon managed by the Bureau of Land Management are governed by resource management plans contingent on the barred owl cull going forward, according to Travis Joseph, president and chief executive of the American Forest Resource Council, a trade association representing mills, loggers, lumber buyers and other stakeholders in the region.

    The area can produce at least 278 million board feet per year under current plans, “with the potential for significantly more,” Joseph said in a mid-October letter to Congress.

    If the cull is scrapped, he said, the federal agency likely will need to restart Endangered Species Act consultation for the northern spotted owl, which is listed as threatened. It’s a process that could take years. According to the letter, it would create “unacceptable risks and delays to current and future timber sales.”

    Timber production goals laid out by the Trump administration also could be jeopardized.

    Momentum to stop the cull grew this summer when Sen. John Kennedy, a conservative from Louisiana, introduced a resolution to reverse the Biden-era plan.

    That move reflected an unlikely alliance between some right-wing politicians and animal rights advocates who say it’s too expensive and inhumane. Some Democrats have also opposed the cull, and companion legislation in the House has bipartisan backers.

    The stakes are high. Many environmentalists and scientists maintain that northern spotted owls will go extinct if their competitors aren’t kept in check. Barred owls — which originally hail from eastern North America — are larger, more aggressive and less picky when it comes to habitat and food, giving them an edge when vying for resources.

    Last week, Politico’s E&E News reported that Kennedy said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum had asked him to stand down from his effort to stop the owl-killing plan. The legislator told the outlet he would charge ahead anyway.

    “I don’t think the federal government ought to be telling God, nature — whatever you believe in — this one can exist, this one can’t,” Kennedy told E&E. “The barred owl is not the first species that has ever moved its territory and it won’t be the last.”

    Kennedy did not respond to The Times’ request for comment. A spokesperson for the Department of the Interior said they could not respond to the inquiry because of the government shutdown.

    “It’s strange that a Republican in the South is taking on the owl issue, specifically, when its consequences will impact western Oregon BLM timber sales,” Joseph said in an interview. “It will lead to lower revenues for counties, it will impact jobs and it will put the spotted owl on a trajectory towards extinction.”

    The stance aligns in part with that of environmental groups like the Environmental Protection Information Center and Center for Biological Diversity, which have supported culling barred owls to help the beleaguered spotted owls in their native territory. It’s an unexpected overlap, given environmentalists’ long history of fighting to protect old-growth forests in the region the owls call home.

    Tom Wheeler, chief executive of EPIC, said it’s possible that culling barred owls could lead to a bump in timber harvest on the BLM land in western Oregon but overall it would lead to more habitat being protected throughout the spotted owls’ expansive range. The presence of spotted owls triggers protections under the Endangered Species Act. If the cull boosts the spotted owl population as intended, it means more guardrails.

    “It puts us in admittedly an awkward place,” Wheeler said. “But our advocacy for barred owl removal is predicated not on treating the northern spotted owl as a tool against the timber industry and against timber harvest. What we’re trying to do is provide for the continued existence of the species.”

    Many Native American tribes support controlling barred owls in the region. In a letter to Congress last week, the nonprofit Intertribal Timber Council said barred owls threaten more than the spotted owl.

    “As a generalist predator, it poses risks to a wide range of forest and aquatic species that hold varying degrees of social and ecological importance to tribes, including species integral to traditional food systems and watershed health,” wrote the council, which aims to improve the management of natural resources important to Native American communities.

    Since 2013, the Hoopa Valley tribe in Northern California has been involved with sanctioned hunting of the owls and has observed the spotted owl population stabilizing over time, according to the letter.

    However, groups like Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy argue that the plan to take out so many barred owls over a vast landscape won’t work, aside from the high owl death toll. More barred owls simply will fly into where others were removed, said Wayne Pacelle, president of both groups.

    That makes habitat key — and the prospect of losing more to logging in western Oregon devastating, according to Pacelle.

    To stop the owl-culling plan, both chambers of Congress would need to pass a joint resolution and President Trump would need to sign it. If successful, the resolution would preclude the agency from pursuing a similar rule, unless explicitly authorized by Congress.

    The plan already faced setbacks. In May, federal officials canceled three related grants totaling more than $1.1 million, including one study that would have removed barred owls from over 192,000 acres in Mendocino and Sonoma counties.

    Lila Seidman

    Source link

  • Newsom administration advances delta tunnel project despite environmental opposition

    Newsom administration advances delta tunnel project despite environmental opposition

    In the face of heavy opposition from environmental groups, Gov. Gavin Newsom and his administration are pushing forward with a controversial plan to build a 45-mile water tunnel beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta — a project the governor says is vital to modernizing the state’s aging water system.

    State officials released their final environmental analysis of the proposed delta tunnel project on Friday, signaling the start of a process of seeking permits to build the tunnel that would use massive pumps to transfer water from the Sacramento River to cities and farmlands to the south.

    Newsom and state water managers say the tunnel would help California adapt to worsening cycles of drought fueled by climate change and capture more water during wet periods. They say it would also help address the risks to infrastructure posed by earthquakes and flooding.

    “Climate change is threatening our access to clean drinking water, diminishing future supplies for millions of Californians,” Newsom said in a written statement. “Doing nothing is not an option. After the three driest years on record, we didn’t have the infrastructure to fully take advantage of an exceptionally wet year, which will become more and more critical as our weather whiplashes between extremes.”

    Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

    Environmental groups have condemned the plan, saying the tunnel would seriously harm the delta’s deteriorating ecosystem and threaten fish species that are already on the brink. Opponents argue that the funds needed to build the tunnel would be better spent on groundwater recharge efforts, water recycling, and stormwater capture, among other projects.

    Debate over the project has been simmering for decades. Former Gov. Jerry Brown sought a two-tunnel proposal, calling the project WaterFix. Newsom has supported a redesigned project with a single tunnel, called the Delta Conveyance Project.

    The plan calls for a concrete tunnel 36 feet wide and running 140 to 170 feet underground, connecting to a new pumping plant that would send water into the California Aqueduct.

    Construction costs have previously been estimated at $16 billion, but the state plans to update those cost estimates next year.

    California officials say the tunnel’s two proposed intakes on the Sacramento River would allow the system to capture and transport more water during wet periods. State water managers say the current infrastructure makes for missed opportunities when large quantities of stormwater are allowed to flow trough the delta and into the Pacific Ocean during rainy periods, such as last winter.

    Tunnel supporters say the project would improve California’s ability to withstand worsening droughts and intense swings between wet and dry periods.

    “We really don’t have time to waste in terms of getting all projects moving forward that can secure California in this new hydrologic scenario,” said Karla Nemeth, director of the state Department of Water Resources.

    Nemeth said the increase in water availability from the delta would be “pegged to those times when we do have those high flows,” rather than during dry times.

    “Ultimately, it really is triggered by intense pulse conditions,” she said.

    Officials estimated that if the tunnel had been in place during the torrential storms in January, the state could have captured and moved an additional 228,000 acre-feet of water, enough to supply about 2.3 million people for a year.

    “We need to preserve the backbone of our water system,” said Wade Crowfoot, the state’s natural resources secretary.

    Crowfoot said without this update, the existing water system is vulnerable to the effects of climate change as well as potential damage from a large earthquake, which could disrupt water deliveries for 27 million Californians. He said a quake could render the system unusable for months or more than a year, which he said would be “the largest catastrophe in any water system in America.”

    “To ensure that our conveyance is both climate-resilient and earthquake-resilient, we need to modernize this infrastructure,” he said.

    Environmentalists and other critics argue that the state is failing to see the big picture and has based the project on outdated climate science.

    “Like its predecessor, the WaterFix Project, the Delta Conveyance Project fails to consider or address the risks from accelerating climate change impacts to Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds and the delta,” said Deirdre Des Jardins, an independent water researcher.

    Des Jardins and a coalition of environmental and fishing advocates said in recent written comments that the project faces major uncertainties, “including worsening climate change impacts on water supply and sea level rise, coupled with the need to reduce exports in order to increase freshwater flows through the delta.” They also said the state has failed to consider non-tunnel alternatives.

    Newsom’s tunnel proposal, as outlined in the state’s final environmental impact report, is “another failure of state water officials to imagine alternative approaches in a climate-impacted California,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, executive director of the group Restore the Delta.

    “The big pipe engineering solutions of the last century are no longer the way forward in California water’s climate-changed reality,” Barrigan-Parilla said. The latest delta tunnel plan, she said, is “out of date for climate change science” and will quickly be obsolete if it’s built.

    She suggested the state invest in projects that “reduce reliance on water exports from the delta,” such as underground water storage in farming areas, more stormwater collection and wastewater recycling in cities.

    Other environmentalists said the tunnel’s water diversions would deny critical flows to the delta and San Francisco Bay. They warned that would exacerbate recent declines in native fish such as Chinook salmon, longfin smelt, white sturgeon and endangered delta smelt.

    “The science clearly demonstrates that fish need increased river flows to survive, but state agencies are ignoring it,” said Jon Rosenfield, science director for San Francisco Baykeeper. “California diverts more than half of the water flowing through Central Valley rivers to serve industrial agriculture and big cities. Because of excessive water diversions, the list of fish native to San Francisco Bay and its watershed that are verging on extinction continues to grow, and our fisheries are increasingly shut down.”

    This year, commercial salmon fishing was shut down along the coast because fish populations declined dramatically.

    Scott Artis, executive director of the Golden State Salmon Assn., charged that Newsom and his administration “mismanaged our rivers during the drought,” harming the fishing industry, and that the tunnel project “looks like an extinction plan for salmon.”

    “Southern California residents will be on the hook to pay for nearly all of this $20-billion boondoggle,” Artis said. “The tunnel could cause Southern California water rates to skyrocket — without delivering much benefit. The core problem is that we’re pumping too much water from the Bay-Delta. We need to divert less.”

    John Buse, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, said the state’s final environmental report “maintains the same skewed analysis by failing to come to terms with the massive harm this tunnel will bring to the delta and its fish.”

    Although many environmental groups oppose the tunnel, Newsom’s proposal has found support among some water districts, organized labor and business groups.

    Jennifer Pierre, general manager of the 27-member State Water Contractors, said California can no longer afford to delay the project.

    “Our climate reality requires that we build and adapt,” Pierre said. “The Delta Conveyance Project represents a golden opportunity to increase the [State Water Project’s] ability to move and store water when it’s wet for use when it’s dry and will allow us to be more flexible in response to the state’s changing hydrological conditions.”

    Jennifer Barrera of the California Chamber of Commerce said that improving the state’s “water system and its infrastructure through the Delta Conveyance Project is urgently needed.”

    Within 10 days, the state is expected to certify the environmental documents, culminating the review and enabling the Newsom administration to turn to environmental permits. State officials said they expect to complete all permits by 2026, allowing for construction to begin around 2030.

    The completion of the environmental review will also lead to discussions among managers of water agencies about whether to contribute financially to the project. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California will review the environmental documents as well as an upcoming analysis of costs and benefits as the district’s board considers “how best to invest our resources in response to the changing climate,” said Adel Hagekhalil, the district’s general manager.

    State officials said the project is part of a broader water strategy to respond to a projected 10% loss in average water supplies by 2040 due to hotter conditions.

    The state is continuing to invest in other types of projects, including wastewater recycling, stormwater capture and groundwater recharge, as well as improved efficiency and conservation efforts, Crowfoot said.

    “But at the same time, we can’t stick our head in the sand about the fact that our backbone water infrastructure remains essential,” Crowfoot said. “We can’t simply shift investments into all those localized sources and expect to maintain water reliability for 40 million people in the fifth-largest economy in the world. We have to do both.”

    Times staff writer Hayley Smith contributed to this report.

    Ian James

    Source link