Red Lodge Clearinghouse

The Department of Energy and the Bureau of Land Management have been holding a series of public meetings this month and next around the West to gather public input on the environmental impact statement for the West-wide energy corridor.

Chief among the concerns raised at several of these meetings have been the intermittent black lines that criss-cross all types of public lands -- including the occasional wildlife refuge -- and then stop at a private or state land boundary. The resulting gaps, and the corridor's passage through a handful of protected areas, were the main concerns expressed at the Jan. 24 meeting here as well as others held in recent weeks throughout the West.

Several residents said they are worried that the federal government will close the gaps by condemning private lands. "What's going to happen when they connect the dots?" asked Todd Munson of Albuquerque.

Tom Gow of the Bureau of Land Management's Rio Puerco field office contended that the federal government would not invoke the power of eminent domain to extend the corridor across private lands that link federal lands. "The federal government is not going to utilize eminent domain," he told attendees. "It says that in the document."

Federal officials say the corridor plan , which was prompted by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, could streamline project approvals through a coordinated process between the federal agencies involved rather than making rights-of-way decisions on a case-by-case basis, as happens now.

The corridors would create federally designated pathways for pipelines transporting oil, gas and hydrogen, in anticipation of hydrogen fuel cell cars, as well as transmission lines.

"This corridor will support the efficient flow of energy through the grid," said Ron Montagna, BLM's chief for rights-of-way management, in an interview after the Albuquerque hearing. He emphasized that the agencies want to use existing rights-of-way and corridors "to the greatest extent possible."

But routing the new corridor along existing rights-of-way could present problems in itself, some residents said. Tony Lucero, a resident of the village of Placitas, N.M., whose family has lived in the area since before New Mexico became a state, said he is worried about new pipelines and transmission lines being built on federal lands that skirt the village, where two corridors already exist.

"We're concerned that some of these routes could destroy our village -- the cemeteries and historical sites," he told hearing officer Laverne Kyriss of DOE at the Albuquerque meeting.

Protecting protected areas

Residents and representatives from environmental groups encouraged DOE and BLM to reroute the corridor to avoid protected areas. They expressed concern that the corridor's proposed route would cross or skirt 13 wildlife refuges, wilderness study areas and areas identified as having wilderness characteristics. Those areas include Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico, Havasu National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, Coachella National Wildlife Refuge in California and the Haggerman Fossil Beds National Monument in Idaho. There are already hundreds of pipeline routes and transmission lines through federal lands, including national forests and wildlife refuges.

"While we believe there are some good ideas in this process, we believe there are some considerations that should be taken into account before this is finalized," said Nada Culver with the Wilderness Society. "I hope what's clear to the agencies is how many people care about how public lands are affected."

TWS and other environmental groups have asked DOE and BLM to narrow the corridor through protected areas. Agency officials say they have to keep in mind Congress' directive to allow for several different types of pipelines in any given stretch of corridor, which might make it difficult to narrow the corridor throughout the West (Land Letter, Sept. 13, 2007).

The Department of Energy's LaVerne Kyriss emphasized that while the corridor designation is designed to support future energy development, it does not amount to federal approval of pipeline and transmission projects. "We don't know what projects will be approved," she said. Each specific project proposed in the corridor will undergo environmental analysis, she said.

These concerns extend to other areas hosting the corridor. At a Jan. 15 meeting in Grand Junction, Colo., critics charged that the federal proposal could destroy sensitive lands in Colorado, including five areas proposed for wilderness protection in pending congressional legislation. They also said public lands in neighboring Utah are at risk because the proposal includes an energy corridor through Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and bordering Arches National Park.

Alex Daue of the Wilderness Society noted that the draft plan still includes corridors that would affect national parks, national wildlife refuges, national monuments, wilderness and wilderness-quality areas, and roadless areas. Furthermore, the corridors would affect areas proposed for wilderness designation in a bill by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) such as the Roan Plateau, South Shale Ridge and the Yampa River.

"These corridors need to be moved out of these special places," Daue said. "The outstanding value of these places and their fragile nature far outweighs the need to designate corridors within them and there are other alternatives, which would minimize or completely eliminate such damaging effects."

No effects claim questioned

Greg Trainor, utility and street systems director for the city of Grand Junction, also expressed concerns about the federal government's determination that the designation would not have environmental impacts. He also noted that the corridor designation would not preclude companies from proposing corridors elsewhere.

"We are concerned generally with the broad swaths of land under the proposed action alternative and with the statement that, should applicants wish to apply for lands outside of the corridor, they may do so," Trainor said. "That, combined with the 'no effect' meaning, at least in the executive summary, raises the question of the purpose of the corridor designation in the first place and the serious expenditure of resources to evaluate impacts that don't exist because the designation itself doesn't create an impact."

Trainor said city officials would prefer that the agencies state that there "may be effects" from the designation and requirements that energy transmission lines would have to remain inside the designated corridor.

Brenda Linster, a land and regulatory adviser for EnCana Oil and Gas, expressed concerns about a corridor that parallels the existing TransColorado pipeline, noting that building another pipeline in the area would be difficult because it would require crossing private land and could impact endangered fish species in the Colorado River as well as six endangered, threatened or candidate plant species. At the time the TransColorado was built, the Fish and Wildlife Service allowed the transplanting of such federally protected plants to other areas, but that is no longer the case, she said.

"We do not believe there is a feasible crossing of the Colorado River," she said.

Enthusiasm for renewables

Electricity and energy providers have expressed support for the corridor proposal, which they say is sorely needed to move energy from where it is proposed to where it is needed most. That includes traditional energy sources such as oil and gas as well as renewables like solar, wind and biomass.

Some environmental groups also support the corridor for its potential to enhance renewable energy distribution. At the Cheyenne, Wyo., meeting, held Jan. 29, Tom Darin, staff attorney for Western Resource Advocates, encouraged the federal government to consider an "energy policy fitting the 21st century" when looking at the layout of the corridors. "There is a huge opportunity for the corridors to facilitate a new energy economy," he said.

Steve Oxley, deputy chairman of the Wyoming Public Service Commission, also urged the panel to take wind energy in particular into account in routing the corridors, noting that the state recently permitted two 99-megawatt facilities.

Oxley also noted the importance of having buy-in from private land owners in order to fill in the gaps in the corridor system. "I'm hoping that whoever's inhabiting these gaps share the idea that this can really be a force for good in solving our energy needs," he said.

The final two hearings on the plan will be held Feb. 5 in Elko, Nev., and Washington, D.C. The agencies are accepting public comment on the EIS until Feb. 14.

April Reese writes from Santa Fe, N.M. Eryn Gable is an independent energy and environment reporter based in Woodland Park, Colo.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment