Da Beers!

Da Beers!

Friday, January 31, 2014

Renewable Energy Could Generate $4 Billion to Aid in Salton Sea Restoration

The Imperial Irrigation District (IID) has released the “Salton Sea Revenue Potential Study” which estimates that development of renewable energy in the Salton Sea area could generated $4 billion in revenues for Salton Sea restoration over a 30 year period. The study considered revenue potential from development of geothermal, solar and biofuels, as well as other revenue sources. Geothermal development alone could produce two gigawatts of power.

The once vibrant Salton Sea ecosystem is under increasing stress from a number of factors, including water transfers to costal California. State and local governments are committed to restoring the Sea, but have yet to identify a feasible funding source. The Salton Sea Authority, a joint governmental agency that includes IID, is currently undertaking a feasibility and funding study in conjunction the State of California to determine potential revenue streams. The Authority is in discussions with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to review and augment the IID study using NREL expertise in long term development and marketing of renewables in the western United States. NREL recently concluded its own study entitled “Beyond Renewable Portfolio Standards: An Assessment of Regional Supply and Demand Conditions Affecting the Future of Renewable Energy in the West.” 


SaltonSea 







Sunday, January 26, 2014

Eucalyptus: Beauty or Beast?

Over at High Country News J. Madeleine Nash has posted an interesting piece on California's non-native Eucalyptus population, and focused on the well-known Blue Gum groves of  Montaña de Oro State Park near Morro Bay.

On one side of the controversy are folks who identify themselves as environmentalists, and who want to remove such non-natives to restore our badly disrupted native ecosystem.  These folks also worry about the pervasive spread of such exotics, and the increased fire hazard they create.

On the other side of the controversy are folks who also identify themselves as environmentalists, and who view these exotic trees as having just as much right to exist as indigenous Redwoods, Sequoias, or Oaks.  Apparently in their view all trees are equally wonderful, and equally huggable.

The money quote comes from environmental historian Jared Farmer, author of "Trees in Paradise: A California History."  Farmer says many see in these immigrant trees an experience that parallels their own.
"There are still a significant number of Californians who are the first generation in the state. They have come to love California. They have come to think of it as home. And they feel this kinship with the eucalyptus. They say to themselves, 'This tree is not from here, but it's beautiful, and it seems to fit'."
Just as these folks can't -- or won't -- see the damage such invasive plants do, neither do they choose to recognize the damage their own presence does here in California.

Our biggest problem isn't the divide between those who do and don't love California.  Our problem is the far too many people who love California so much that they feel they have a need -- and right -- to pile in here to live.  And with them came crowded roads and beaches, relentless habitat destruction, pervasive air and water pollution, and breathtaking increases in the cost of living that have driven many natives far inland, or completely out of the state.

But I suppose that's a massive problem -- a problem of the masses if you will -- that only us pre-1970s California Natives can truly appreciate.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Wind Project "Take" Permits Extended To 30 Years - Eagles Nonplussed

J. Wylie Donald with McCarter & English notes that starting today, Bald and Golden Eagles will sleep less soundly.

 On 8 January 2014 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s new rule revising the regulations for permits for the taking of golden eagles and bald eagles goes into effect. According to the FWS, “This change will facilitate the responsible development of renewable energy and other projects designed to operate for decades, while continuing to protect eagles consistent with our statutory mandates.”

Eagles and other migratory birds are a substantial threat to wind projects.  But not because they will cause turbine blades to fail. Rather, turbine blades (and to a lesser extent, towers, guy wires, transmission lines and other constructions in the air space) can be lethal to birds. This poses a serious problem for wind energy companies as birds are legally protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712), and eagles further protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC §§ 668-668d).

Duke Energy Renewables, Inc. recently ran afoul of these requirements at its 176 turbine Campbell Hill and Top of the World wind projects in Wyoming, where at least 14 golden eagles died between 2009 and 2013. In November, Duke accepted a plea agreement in “the first ever criminal enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unpermitted avian takings at wind projects.” It included:
  • Fines - $400,000
  • Restitution - $100,000 to the State of Wyoming
  • Community Service - $160,000 payment to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for eagle preservation projects
  • Conservation funding - $340,000 to a conservation fund for the purchase of land or conservation easements
  • Probation – five years
  • Compliance Plan – implementation of a plan at a cost of $600,000 per year with “specific measures to avoid and minimize golden eagle and other avian wildlife mortalities at company’s four commercial wind projects in Wyoming.”
  • Permit – required application for a Programmatic Eagle Take Permit.
That last item is directly tied to tomorrow’s rule. “Take” is defined in the regulations as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or disturb.” 50 CFR § 22.3. “Programmatic take” is “take that is recurring, is not caused solely by indirect effects, and that occurs over the long term or in a location or locations that cannot be specifically identified.” Id. The regulations at 50 CFR § 22.26 provide for permits to take bald eagles and golden eagles when the taking is associated with, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. Programmatic permits authorize take that “is unavoidable even though advanced conservation practices are being implemented.” The new rule commentary notes that permits may authorize “lethal take … such as mortalities caused by collisions with wind turbines, powerline electrocutions, and other potential sources of incidental take.”

Under the current rule, a take permit was good for only 5 years, which inserted much uncertainty into wind farm projects. The new rule permits wind energy developers to obtain a take permit that runs for 30 years, 50 CFR § 22.26(i), which “better correspond[s] to the operational timeframe of renewable energy projects.” The risk that a wind project will cause unforeseen harm to eagles during this much longer period is mitigated by a new requirement for 5 year reviews, in which the FWS “will determine if trigger points specified in the permit have been reached that would indicate that additional conservation measures ... should be implemented to potentially reduce eagle mortalities, or if additional mitigation measures are needed.” Id. at § 22.26(h). Additional actions that might be taken as the result of the review could be permit changes, including implementation of additional conservation measures and updating of monitoring requirements. Id. Even suspension or revocation of the permit is possible. Id.

That the FWS is serious about protecting eagles is demonstrated by the enforcement action against entities like Duke (or against individuals like San Diego's own Dave Bittner). But the FWS also recognizes that development is necessary.  Given that tension Mr. Donald argues that the 30 year permit period appears to be a reasonable compromise (unless one is an eagle).

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Ramona's Amazing Pamo Valley

Having been raised in San Diego County's back country, I was pretty surprised when reading accounts of this year's Escondido (California) Christmas Bird Count to learn about a place I'd never heard of before: Pamo Valley.

The excitement for the centered around reports of multiple Lewis's Woodpeckers -- possibly as many as 8 or 10.  That's pretty remarkable for a bird that according to the SD Bird Atlas (Unitt) has only been reported on three of 17 Escondido (California) Christmas Bird Counts (1986 to 2001).

Adding to the allure of Pamo Valley were additional reports of multiple Golden Eagles, many Lark Sparrows, and Western Bluebirds together with Mountain Bluebirds which the Atlas describes as "highly irregular in southern California, usually localized and uncommon").  Once we'd heard all that, it wasn't tough to replace Ramona Grasslands on our 3d Annual New Year's Day Surf-to-Sand Cross-County Bird Trek.

Based on comments from other folks we ran into on New Year's Day, we aren't the only local birders who weren't aware of Pamo Valley.  So what's the story with this fantastic place?

According to a 2011 story in the Manchester Dis-United, most of the valley bottom is owned by the City of San Diego public utilities department’s enterprise water fund.  The city acquired the land in the 1950s as a reservoir site.  Uh oh.

While there are no plans to build a reservoir here now, the story notes that "there are no other good reservoir sites left in San Diego County."  Meanwhile, the city leases the land to a Ramona rancher who caretakes the 3,769 acres while grazing cattle.

The word “Pamo” probably comes from the Diegueno word, “paamuu,” according to “California Place Names” by Erwin G. Gudde and William Bright and citing an Indian rancheria called Pamo in Spanish records as early as 1778.  

The name was later adopted by Rancho Valle de Pamo (also called Rancho Santa María), a 17,709-acre grant given in 1843 by Governor Manuel Micheltorena to José Joaquín Ortega and Edward StokesThe grant occupied the Santa Maria Valley and was centered on present-day Ramona.  

With the cession of California to the United States following the Mexican–American War, the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided that such land grants would be honored.  As required by the Land Act of 1851, a claim for Rancho Valle de Pamo was filed with the Public Land Commission and the grant was patented to José Joaquín Ortega and Eduardo Stokes in 1872.



Larger Image
UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library
   
The land changed hands several more times until it was acquired in 1886 by Milton Santee, a Los Angeles civil engineer and land developer. Santee started the Santa Maria Land and Water Company and subdivided what is now the townsite of Ramona.  Thankfully, Pamo Valley was too far off the beaten path to become a target for development.
Pamo Valley is surrounded by 4,052-foot-high Black Mountain to the east, 4,221-foot-high Pine Mountain to the north and Orosco Ridge to the west.  Both Santa Ysabel Creek and Temescal Creek run through the valley, the former being a tributary of the San Dieguito River that runs from Volcan Mountain near Julian to the ocean near Del Mar. Temescal Creek flows into the San Luis Rey River.