Bush gives go ahead to Yellowstone plan, ignores USFWS, NPS, science

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.billingsgazette.com...t.inc


Lawsuit filed over permitting Roundup plant
By MIKE STARK
Gazette Wyoming Bureau

Environmental groups sued the Bush administration on Thursday over its
surprise decision earlier this year to withdraw its concerns that a
coal-fired power plant near Roundup would adversely affect air quality
at Yellowstone National Park.

The decision by one of the administration's political appointees
reversed an earlier finding that the plant would have an "adverse
impact" and ignored the scientific recommendations from the National
Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"Clearly what happened in this instance was that political decisions
and shenanigans have run roughshod over the best decisions of their
professionals who are charged with protecting the parks," said Tony
Jewett, of the National Parks Conservation Association.


On Jan. 10, Craig Manson, the Interior Department's assistant
secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, sent a letter to the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality that said the Interior Department
did not believe that the proposed Roundup power plant would harm
visibility at Yellowstone.

The letter stunned federal air-quality staffers, who had been studying
the issue and had persuaded top Interior officials to issue the
"adverse impact" finding less than a month before.

The decision also drew fire from Fran Mainella, head of the Park
Service, and Steve Williams, director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, especially because Manson sent the letter without giving the
agencies a chance to respond to the basis of his decision.

"We are disturbed that your decision to withdraw the adverse impact
determination was made without consultation or prior notice to the NPS
or FWS," said a draft of a letter to Manson by Mainella and Williams
on Jan. 13.

They said Manson's decision could set a "potentially harmful
precedent" and "may compromise our ability to negotiate solutions to
air quality-related issues in parks and wilderness areas," according
to documents obtained by environmental groups through the Freedom of
Information Act and released on Thursday.

The dispute stems from a proposal by a New York firm to build a
780-megawatt power generating plant in the Bull Mountains, 12 miles
south of Roundup and 112 miles northeast of Yellowstone.

Developers say the $910 million coal-fired plant would provide about
150 jobs and an economic boost for the struggling Roundup community.

Federal agencies were consulted about whether the plant would harm
Yellowstone or any other areas with pristine Class 1 air sheds.

Last year, the Interior Department concluded that the proposed plant
would be a "significant contributor" to visibility problems at
Yellowstone and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. In particular, the
Park Service and FWS said they were concerned about emissions of
sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, which can contribute to haze and
compromise visibility.

In December, the department took a rare step in issuing a formal
"adverse impact" ruling, which had the potential to make it more
difficult for the project to get its permits.

Project officials objected to that decision, saying the agencies'
analysis was flawed, based on inaccurate computer modeling, and didn't
take into account other effects on visibility, including weather.

Paul Hoffman, a deputy assistant secretary at Interior, then asked
federal staffers to respond to those claims. The government officials
put together a response - including a statement that they "strongly
disagreed" with the development company's assertions - but Hoffman
said it should not be sent to the company, according to Thursday's
lawsuit.

After a conference call with company officials, Manson sent a letter
to the Montana DEQ saying that the Interior Department was withdrawing
its earlier finding of "adverse impact."

Later that week, Hoffman said project developers have presented
compelling information that showed the effects of the plant would not
be as bad as federal scientists had predicted, especially when weather
was figured into the equation.

"Is it fair to punish a power plant applicant for air quality impacts
that are caused by nature?" Hoffman said at the time.

Hugh Vickery, an Interior spokesman, said Thursday that the department
stands by its decision to withdraw its concerns about the project
because of information provided by the company.

"We did not believe it warranted a determination of adverse impact,"
Vickery said.

Company officials praised the decision but internal e-mails among
federal staffers, also obtained through FOIA, showed they were
dismayed by Manson's sudden reversal, prompting one to say "the Asst.
Secy's office just 'sold us down river.' "

In their draft letter to Manson, the heads of NPS and FWS said they
were concerned that he made the decision "without first giving us the
opportunity to address any outstanding concerns you may have had."

They also said Manson's decision could undermine their efforts to work
collaboratively with permit applicants in the future and could affect
"our credibility and ability to protect Class 1 areas."

Thursday's lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.,
accuses Manson, Hoffman and Interior Secretary Gale Norton of
violating the Clean Air Act, which prohibits degradation of air
quality by manmade sources in Class 1 air sheds such as Yellowstone's.

The suit was filed by National Parks Conservation Association, Greater
Yellowstone Coalition, The Wilderness Society and a Denver resident.

The environmental groups said the federal agencies made suggestions
that would allow the Roundup plant to operate without harming air
quality in Yellowstone. But, they said, those suggestions were
overridden by the Bush administration.

"I think it is an outlandish thing that happened here," said Michael
Scott, director of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. "Rather than ask
a company to do something reasonable, find a way to produce
electricity and protect the park, they've said you can build your
plant and not care about what happens to Yellowstone."

The permits issued for the plant by DEQ are also being challenged at
the state level.

If all the people who have problems with power plants would quit using
electricity we wouldn't need new ones.DUH!!!\\

mikell

"Greg Pavlov" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:08:04 -0500, "mikell" wrote:

If all the people who have problems with power plants would quit using
electricity we wouldn't need new ones.DUH!!!\\

mikell

This is the attraction of Mr. Limbaugh (when he's not in
a detox unit somewhere): reduce an issue to a one-liner
so *everyone* can feel like an expert without having to
think twice. Or even once.


Good thing you added that last line! g

--riverman

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:53:28 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:08:04 -0500, "mikell" wrote:

If all the people who have problems with power plants would quit using
electricity we wouldn't need new ones.DUH!!!\\

mikell

This is the attraction of Mr. Limbaugh (when he's not in
a detox unit somewhere): reduce an issue to a one-liner
so *everyone* can feel like an expert without having to
think twice. Or even once.


this is the response of someone with no solution what so ever but a
real caustic opinion on anyone who may have the temerity to offer one.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:45:30 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:02:03 GMT, Bones wrote:


this is the response of someone with no solution what so ever but a
real caustic opinion on anyone who may have the temerity to offer one.

If your idea of a solution is a junk one-liner with "Duh" on
the end, I would say that you *should* show temerity in
offering one, but I suspect that you've dittoed yourself
right into thinking that that really is an answer to everything.


not the case, but I have yet to read your solution....

Maybe try and put the "ditto" stuff aside and address the issue
without lambasting someone to your ideological right.

"Greg Pavlov" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:37:47 GMT, Bones wrote:


not the case, but I have yet to read your solution....


Ah, hoping to be handed a solution, are we ? Now that
the Big Guy is in the medical slammer, it's hard to get
the quick answers, eh ? It must be tough.

Maybe try and put the "ditto" stuff aside and address the issue
without lambasting someone to your ideological right.

To my "ideological right ?" And what is that ? "Duh" is an
ideology ? Which ideology is that ?


Republican, dude! Duh!

--riverman
(or was it the other one? Its all so....relative!)

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:44:16 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:37:47 GMT, Bones wrote:


not the case, but I have yet to read your solution....


Ah, hoping to be handed a solution, are we ? Now that
the Big Guy is in the medical slammer, it's hard to get
the quick answers, eh ? It must be tough.

Maybe try and put the "ditto" stuff aside and address the issue
without lambasting someone to your ideological right.

To my "ideological right ?" And what is that ? "Duh" is an
ideology ? Which ideology is that ?


Never mind... I can see it's not worth the keystrokes

Well finally you get it.

mikell