Breckenridge Destinations supports independent journalism. Click for great deals on vacation lodging in Breckenridge.
Watchdog group says proposed nationwide permits for renewable energy development are too broad; more site-specific review needed
New federal wetlands permits for renewable energy projects could lead to significant wetlands impacts, according environmental groups.
By Bob Berwyn
SUMMIT COUNTY — Two new permits for wetlands disturbances could help ease the development of renewable power, but the changes would come at the expense of American wetlands, already under siege from a steady stream of development, according to a watchdog group that monitors federal agencies.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility claims the changes could result in the destruction of hundreds of miles of streams and thousands of acres of wetlands.
At issue are the Corps’ nationwide permits, which allow for small-scale wetlands impacts without a site specific review. The new permits would give a blank check for onshore and offshore renewable energy projects, said PEER’s New England director Kyla Bennett.
“They give free reign for land-based solar, wind, geothermal and biomass projects,” Bennett said, explaining that the second permit does the same for offshore wind turbines.
The first one, Permit A, would allow energy developers to fill up to 0.5 acres of wetlands without site-specific review, as well as 300 linear feet of stream disturbances. The Corps estimates that permit would be used 225 times per year, resulting in about 65 acres of wetlands impacts.
Bennett, a former wetlands specialist with the EPA, said she’s not sure how the Corps came up with those numbers, and she thinks they may not fully reflect the potential wetlands impacts.
“The Army Corps is doing the nation a disservice with this proposal by permitting massive losses of freshwater swamps, streams, and ocean habitat,” she said. “The Clean Water Act only allows this type of permit for projects with ‘minimal adverse environmental effects’ but the Corps has plowed a battleship through this narrow loophole.”
Similarly, Permit B could be used 50 times annually, allowing up to 10 offshore wind turbines to be installed with each permit, according to Bennett.
The battle over the new nationwide permits is part of a larger philosophical debate about how to proceed with the development of renewable energy resources. Major mainstream environmental groups generally support the federal government’s push to develop renewable resources; smaller, community based groups want the feds to focus on pursuing those projects within existing development footprints.
April 18 is the final day for public comments on the latest version of the Corps rule for Nationwide Permits. PEER estimates that the permits authorize a minimum of 328 miles of American streams to be filled each year and likely substantially more. The environmental groups charge that the Corps proposal:
• Violates the Clean Water Act requirement that this type of permit may only be issued for activities that “will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effects on the environment.” By contrast, the plan could allow unlimited wetland losses and allow the Corps to waive acreage limits where they exist;
• Strips away comprehensive review by the federal resource agencies, allowing sensitive habitats to be sliced apart bit-by-bit without looking at cumulative effects; and,
• Allows wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy to gratuitously destroy wetlands, streams and seabed, even when there are available alternatives. The Corps would even allow wetlands destruction for parking lots, access roads and other “attendant features” of these energy projects.
“The Corps has turned wetlands protection into a regulatory car wash where the permits are spit out in assembly line fashion,” Bennett said, explaining that, in 2003, the Corps issued 74,000 Nationwide or other permits. “These Nationwide Permits subject natural places to death by a thousand cuts.”
You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE– 2010–0035 and/or ZRIN 0710–ZA05, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: NWP2012@usace.army.mil. Include the docket number, COE–2010– 0035, and/or the ZRIN number, 0710– ZA05, in the subject line of the message.
Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW–CO–R, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314–1000.
Links courtesy PEER:
Look at the problems with the renewable energy wetland permits
See the eco-significance of nationwide permits
View the Corps proposed nationwide permits
Filed under: energy, Environment Tagged: | Corps of Engineers, Environment, nationwide wetlands permits, PEER, renewable energy, Summit County News, wetlands
Arapahoe Basin supports independent journalism. Click to visit The Legend online.
Powder's falling at Monarch!! Have you reserved your spot yet?
Innovative energy underwrites coverage of energy stories.
INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES ARE NOT GREEN! The American Wind Energy Association, the heavily-funded lobbying group made up of wind developers and manufacturers, has pushed the benefits of wind energy for many years now. Many well-intentioned people have accepted what they say as gospel, and many government officials are glad to take their campaign money and appear green in doing so. The problem is that the AWEA can’t back up most of those claims with science from independent studies, only self-financed advocate studies. So now horse sense has to take over in this debate. The very simple questions are, “Should the America commit trillions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and consumer mandates to a technology that cannot back up the claims of its proponents? Should we allow our wetlands and environment to be compromised in the name of a renewable energy that is not renewable?” The truth is that the world over, not one coal or gas plant has been decommissioned because of wind turbines, as wind energy requires those plants to back them up due to the variability of the wind. They really are not green at all, and they kill local property values and also present a health threat to locals due to the particular type of noise they create. Plus, they fail at being a source of reliable electricity in most applications.
1. http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15081808
CO2 and other power plant pollution worsens in Colorado due to wind turbines
2. http://www.ens.dk/en-us/supply/renewable-energy/windpower/onshore-wind-power/loss-of-value-to-real-property/sider/forside.aspx
If property value is not an issue , why is iy now the law in Denmark and other places that property owners be compensated for loss of value?
3. http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6310/Britains-Wind-Farms-are-No-Spin-Zones-When-Cold-Hits
Britain’s Wind Farms produce almost no power for the past two winters.
4. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/ben-hoen-on-need-for-property-value-guarantee/
Ben Hoen is the main author of the Berkeley Lab study that tries to prove there’s no impact on property values. Here, Mr. Hoen flips and acknowledges that homeowners living close to turbines should be compensated.
5. http://www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html
Sworn expert testimony on Wind Turbine Syndrome.
the game is a foot. If you call it renewable…it can’t be stopped…no matter how bad or useless it is! Now that more and more of these turbines are out there…nearby people are affected and the large birds are getting wiped out. But as long as someone can fool you with the word renewable…then we have to pay them a tax kickback and a rate kickback. Any usage lower the utilization of the other infrastructure…so future electric rates are gone go up aLOT. Because they passed the law that the “renewable” power has to be used…that is if they happened to be working that day! How much stimulus money has been wasted on project purely designed to enrich a select few while generating as little energy as possible.
The solution is conservation and efficiency which will solve our energy problems as opposed to large industrial complexes built across our open spaces. This is criminal!
At the start of 2003, President Bush ordered EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to not to require permits under the Clean Water Act for the pollution or destruction of wetland areas located within a single state and not associated with any navigable waterway. It caused an uproar in the environmental community and with hunting and fishing groups. Now President Obama’s administration is about to outdo Bush’s transgression with these new permit regulations. Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, it does not matter. The industrialization of our shoreline areas is well under way in the name of Renewable Energy and there appears to be no turning back. Two successive presidents have lied to us. To make matters worse, INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES DO NOT PROVIDE RENEWABLE ENERGY!!!
To quote John Barwis, an energy expert: “Won’t wind turbines decrease emissions of ash, sulfur and nitrogen, heavy metals, and CO2? Won’t we enjoy health benefits, and be doing our part to “save the planet”? Well actually, no. Fluctuations in wind speed cause variations in electrical yield from wind turbines, and these variations do not match electricity demand. So no matter how many windmills are installed, conventional power plants must provide 100 percent backup capacity to avoid power shortages. These backup plants must ramp their output up or down to offset changes in wind speed. Changing the output of a fossil-fuel generation system has a negative impact on its efficiency. When running below optimal output, THEY BURN MORE FUEL per unit of electricity generated. At some level of efficiency loss, the extra fossil fuel consumed becomes greater than the fuel saved from using wind turbines. This is the so-called “turning point,” where the reduction in CO2 emissions becomes zero.” Madoff’s transgressions dwarf in comparison to this takeover of our environment by the big White House energy lobbyists.