(Un)clearing the air

Westerners will breathe the legacy of Bush’s BLM

  • Pat Bagley/caglecartoons.com
 

Page 2

However, the Utah BLM says there isn't enough data from air monitors near gas fields to make an accurate assessment as to whether a particular gas field is violating — or could violate — federal air-quality standards.

That's where state regulators come in — and not all are up to the task. In 2006, for example, Utah placed an air monitor in Vernal, a town of about 8,000 people. By 2007, the monitor was showing high concentrations of particulate matter — tiny pollutants from truck traffic and other energy-related operations. If the trend continued for three straight years, it would have exceeded federal air standards and triggered mandatory enforcement under the Clean Air Act.

Vernal's ozone levels had also periodically spiked to alarmingly high levels. The noxious haze is a leading cause of asthma attacks and other respiratory problems.

But last December, the state shut down the monitor in order to divert money from an EPA grant to the more populous Wasatch Front, which already has serious pollution problems. "We're in a funding crisis … and we're required to use our resources where they're needed most," says Bryce Bird of the Utah Division of Air Quality's Planning and Standards branch.

Environmentalists say the state's decision helped the BLM shirk a more thorough air-quality assessment; indeed, the agency argues that such an analysis was impossible without continuous data from the Vernal monitor. "That's the catch," says Wes Wilson, an EPA engineer who specializes in oil and gas issues. "Even if you get the additional modeling, it's not going to be backed up by the monitoring data."

Bill Stringer, Vernal's district manager, has not responded to High Country News' calls about the EPA critique of his office's air modeling.

Meanwhile, environmentalists are turning to the courts. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance sued the BLM earlier this year over its air-quality analysis for a drilling project in the White River Canyon. This area, just south of Vernal, has been identified by the agency as having wilderness characteristics. Earlier this month a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered the BLM to either prepare a new environmental assessment of the project's cumulative impacts on local ozone pollution or provide a reasoned explanation for its decision not to analyze those impacts. Similar lawsuits by other environmental groups have been filed in Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming, accusing the agency of faulty cumulative air-impacts analyses.

The issue — and some say the air — is made murkier by the BLM's use of categorical exclusions, which, under the 2005 Energy Act, allow individual drilling projects to be approved without environmental review. A Government Accountability Office investigation of the waivers, expected to be completed in mid-2009, has revealed that the BLM granted nearly 6,000 since 2005, half of them in the big gas fields outside of Farmington, N.M., and Pinedale, Wyo. The Vernal office handed out 973.

The waivers tend to disappear when it comes time for the BLM to analyze the impacts of new development projects, EPA officials say. For example, last spring, Svoboda's team had just finished evaluating plans to allow 800 new wells on Utah's Tavaputs Plateau when they learned that the Price office had issued dozens of categorical exclusions to drilling projects in the area. The BLM didn't account for them in its environmental impact statement, nor did it mention their existence to Svoboda. Ultimately, the EPA gave the Price office a failing grade for its air-quality analysis of the expansion.

The loophole's implications are even larger under the most recent land-use plans. In the past, categorical exclusions were granted under existing environmental assessments or environmental impact statements. What is not commonly known, however, is that a categorical exclusion allows the BLM to approve a well under a resource management plan, which covers a much wider area, without informing anyone. "It's like being in the Soviet system and you have no idea what your government is doing," says EPA's Wilson.

Nobody thinks dirty air will disappear when Barack Obama takes office in January. While the president-elect is expected to take a more environmentally sensitive approach to public lands, activists don't foresee immediate changes at the state BLM or field office level. Many of the biggest drilling projects on the boards, including those recently approved by the Price and Vernal offices, may be unstoppable. "Institutional inertia will push a lot of these forward," says David Garbett, a staff lawyer for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Does that mean the BLM's use — and misuse — of categorical exclusions will continue unabated? Not necessarily. Obama could quickly issue a new memorandum that "requires the BLM to notify the public before it issues a categorical exclusion," says Garbett. "That memo could instruct the BLM that it needs to have some sort of analysis that considers the impacts of development permitted by a categorical exclusion."

Meanwhile, unless the Vernal monitor is turned back on and kept on, there's no way to know whether ozone and particulate pollution will cause Vernal to violate the Clean Air Act.

"That's where the BLM and Utah Department of Air Quality are falling down on their responsibility," says Wilson. "Those people in Vernal could be breathing dirty air for another three years."

Pollution
biff Michael Appia
biff Michael Appia
Dec 23, 2008 09:46 AM
   "Bush's Final F.U." in Rolling Stone by Tim Dickinson presents what to look forward to.
more monitoring, less modeling
niko
niko
Nov 05, 2009 11:34 AM
BLM, under any administration, hasn’t done as good of a job as it should monitoring air quality, that’s for sure. And air quality impacts from oil and gas development is something we should be concerned about. The EPA and many “activists,” however, are obsessed with modeling. They seem to think modeling is the key to reducing impacts and is worth the millions the agency is spending on modeling. I disagree.

Running a model costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and years in time. And EPA wants BLM to model for every oil and gas lease sale? There would literally be no development, as the agency would be continuously modeling. Could that be the EPA and activists’ aim here? They demand that BLM model even when they have no project proposals from industry. “Don’t know how many wells will be drilled or where? We don’t care. Make up something and model it. You can only obtain CO2 emissions from a monitoring station in Green River right next to I-80? Using monitoring data from 1978 because there’s nothing newer? Using data from a hundred miles away because there isn’t a station close to the field? That’s okay, use it for your baseline model anyway.” A model is only as good as its assumptions and inputs. A model with a completely hypothetical point/area sources and made up development scenario is helpful to the public how? By misleading them?

Three EISs in southwest Wyoming (Moxa, CDC, Hiawatha) have been held up for TWO YEARS trying to get a model out that the EPA and air quality stakeholders are happy with. (Note that these projects are being modeled together, like EPA says BLM doesn’t do). This analysis has costs millions of dollars and a ton of time. I can’t see how….wait a minute. Maybe these multi-year delays are exactly what EPA and activists are trying to achieve. Too bad that doesn’t help air quality one bit.

BLM should be spending those millions on MONITORING. That way they can see actual impacts instead of completely hypothetical impacts, and apply mitigation measures that will reduce impacts (even stopping or slowing drilling if necessary). As the article correctly points out, there is a huge data gap when it comes to air quality monitoring. Wouldn’t it be nice if the agency had the money to keep the station running in Vernal that the state shut down? Can’t everyone agree this is better use of tax payer dollars than spitting out models based on questionable baseline data and outright guesses?