Summary of Big Bend Air Quality

[SHANEA]

One would have to think that the air quality in Big Bend has not gotten any better since 1988 and has probably actually gotten a lot worse.

http://www.irc-online.org/us-mex/borderlines/updater/1998/july6bb.html

UPDATER    6 July 1998
Summary of Big Bend Air Quality
Study Points Finger at Texas Industry

[JeffB]

Good article.

Back in 1997-2000 I worked for an environmental lab in College Station and one of my jobs was to monitor air quality around the strip mines and power plants in central and north Texas.  The Big Brown plant for TXU is at Lake Fairfield, not so close to Dallas as the article says.  We took PM10 data on the mines at Jewett (which was run by Northwestern Resources for Reliant Energy), Big Brown, and the Winfield North and Winfield South sites for TXU out near Winfield and Mt Pleasant.  

It was part of an EPA program to monitor particulate matter in the 10 micron range, which is bad for human health. Mostly designed to prevent area residents from having to breath fine dust as a result of strip mining.

I was at the mine sites on a weekly basis so I got to know many people in their environmental departments.  I have to say that they have excellent environmental programs especially for land reclamation.  TXU was outstanding in the way they cared about the regulations and adhered to them.  Their reclaimed land was exceptional to the point that native plants, soil chemistry, etc was returned and you would have never know that the land was formerly a strip mine.  Many cases the land was better than before the mined it.

That said, they only adhere to the environmental regulations that the TCEQ and EPA gives them.  So we can;t really blame the strip mines or power plants.  They are just providing us with the electric service we demand and trying to do it in a competitive market.

A "grandfathered" plant is one that was built according to the environmental policies that existed at the time of construction and is not required by law to adhere to newer and more strict policy.  The reason for grandfathering is the supposedly prohibitive costs that it would take to retrofit the plants with new and better technology.  And you know who would get the bill for those retrofit construction jobs.  Imagine your electric bill increasing even more than it already is.

So ultimately its up to us as voting citizens to demand strict environmental policy and require old plants to figure out technology to meet the new requirements.  We have to decide if we can bear higher costs for electricity in exchange for cleaner air.  We can also decide which electric provider we want, such as Green Mountain instead of TXU or Reliant.

Side note, here in my area there is a guy who recently installed solar panels on his house.  It reduced his electric bill by 70% and he drew 70% less power off the TXU grid.  Everything was great until his homeowner association came knocking.  They are threatening to fine him some absurd ammount like $100 a day until he removes them.  According to state law, the homeowner association could even foreclose on his house and put him out on the street.  the legal battle is ongoing.

[SHANEA]

Everything was great until his homeowner association came knocking.  They are threatening to fine him some absurd ammount like $100 a day until he removes them.  According to state law, the homeowner association could even foreclose on his house and put him out on the street.  the legal battle is ongoing.

I'm sure RichardM will weigh in on this....not.  There was supposed to be some legislation to "curb" the power of homeowner associations.  I don't think it made it past first base..

[SHANEA]

Personally, I think these wind tower turbines are awesome.  I really like to see them sprouting like coat hangers and rabbits along I-10 around Iraan.  To me, it's a no brainer to erect as many of these as possible.  Yes, there are concerns about birds of prey, etc., but I think there is probably a way around that.    There is no perfect solution.

There just has to be more to this story than what is printed.

Two famed Texas ranches at odds over wind energy
By JOHN PORRETTO
AP Business Writer

SARITA, Texas — After a century and a half as cordial neighbors, two of the nation's biggest ranches find themselves feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys over wind energy and wildlife and whether the two can coexist.

The storied King and Kenedy ranches, which together cover nearly 1.3 million acres in sparsely populated south Texas, are at odds over plans to erect 240-plus wind-powered turbines on the smaller Kenedy property. The structures and their massive blades can stand 400 feet tall — taller than most 30-story buildings.

The King Ranch, with 825,000 acres near the Texas Gulf Coast, says the turbines will interfere with migratory birds' flight patterns, threaten other wildlife and create an eyesore — though the nearest highway is nearly 20 miles away.

Managers of the charitable trust and foundation that oversee the Kenedy Ranch — a mere 400,000 acres — are resisting a public brawl, but the companies leasing their land for the wind farms say the King Ranch essentially ought to mind its own business. Besides, they say, they've spent two years studying migratory birds' flight patterns and are convinced the environmental impact will be minimal.

Already, Texas leads the nation in wind-generated power, and numerous proposed projects are under way. But none have garnered attention like the Kenedy wind farms — in part because of the King vs. Kenedy skirmish.

Wind farms generate electricity by using wind to turn giant blades that rotate on turbines, an alternative to power created by utilities using coal, natural gas and other sources.

King Ranch President Jack Hunt has called for state legislation to regulate the farms — the lack of such laws governing wind farms making Texas a favorite spot for potential wind projects. He's written newspaper opinion pieces and spoken to the media about what he sees as the dangers of the projects.

Hunt said he met with Kenedy Ranch overseers when the wind farms were first proposed a couple of years ago, hoping to get them to understand they're "sacrificing the long-term value of a rare resource for short-term revenue."

"But it sort of fell on deaf ears," he said.

Marc Cisneros, who runs the John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation from nearby Corpus Christi, has declined to shout back. But he said the project on his section of the ranch not only is environmentally sound but will allow the foundation's charitable work to continue in an impoverished part of the state.

"It's kind of like the Hatfields and McCoys going on here, and it's really unfortunate," said John Calaway, chief development officer for Babcock & Brown Ltd., an Australian outfit that plans to spend up to $800 million to build 157 turbines on a lease secured from the foundation.

"The King Ranch has (nearly) a million acres, and if they think it's the right thing to do to have nothing developed, that's fine," he said. "But for them to infringe on the property rights of the Kenedy Ranch, which has been incredibly thoughtful about all this, is an outrage. It's so unneighborly, it's incredible."

Led largely by Texas, the United States grew its wind-power capacity faster than anyone in the world in 2005 and 2006, and wind farms now operate in 36 states. A recent study for Congress by the National Research Council said wind farms could generate up to 7 percent of the nation's electricity in 15 years — up from less than 1 percent today. That report also said more study was needed on the effect wind farms have on birds and bats.

With no permitting required, plentiful open spaces and the chance of landing a U.S. Department of Energy blade-testing facility, "Texas is uniquely positioned to lead the nation in wind power," said state land commissioner Jerry Patterson, a wind farm proponent who's bickered publicly with Hunt on the issue.

Besides the skyline of turbines endangering birds, Hunt bristles the most at the lack of regulation of the turbine-laden farms. Developers need neither state nor federal approval to erect the towers on private land. Hunt supported state legislation to require permitting for such sites, but it failed. Congress also considered such requirements, but nothing materialized.

"I don't think (government) agencies are doing their jobs," Hunt said from his Houston office. "These are not farms. They're industrial sites."

The feud might have Richard King and Mifflin Kenedy, the ranches' founders, spinning in their graves. In the mid-19th century, the two men each operated steamboats in Florida before migrating to Texas and making fortunes moving goods and people along the Rio Grande. They bought land in tandem and owned a steamboat line. Today, the Kenedy Ranch is sandwiched between King's holdings.

"They were very close — business partners, lifelong friends," said Homero Vera, who runs the Kenedy Ranch Museum in Sarita. "Mifflin was with King when he died in San Antonio."

Today, King Ranch's vast privately held portfolio includes ranching and farming operations, oil and gas royalties and hunting leases, as well as retail operations that include furniture and high-priced leather goods.

The disagreement lingers even as Babcock & Brown and PPM Energy of Portland, Ore., prepare the sites for the turbines, which they both hope to have spinning sometime next year. PPM's initial phase calls for 84 turbines on about 15,000 acres owned by the John G. Kenedy Jr. Charitable Trust — a $400 million investment that's expected to generate 200 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 60,000 average-size homes.

PPM spokesman Jan Johnson said the company, part of Spanish power utility Iberdrola, has worked diligently to make sure the turbines will have as little effect on the area as possible. She said it already scaled back the number of turbines nearer the coastline in part to protect some birds' flight patterns.

Jim Sinclair, the local biologist who studied the birds for PPM, said he's been surprised at the relatively small number of birds he's seen near the wind farm site. The area's hundreds of varieties include mourning doves, long-billed curlews, hawks, orioles and redhead ducks. In general, Sinclair said, many of the birds stick close to the water and large clusters of oak trees, and the turbines are far enough away not to pose too much of a threat — information PPM says it's shared with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others.

"We simply haven't seen a lot of them in the rotor-swept areas," Sinclair said.

Cisneros said he and his board of directors were satisfied the project posed little threat to the environment. The foundation donated $11.5 million to charities in 2006, primarily causes in south Texas associated with the Catholic Church.

"We're convinced the benefits outweigh the disadvantages," Cisneros said. "And we're a charity organization, so there's a human dimension that hasn't been brought into all this."

Those arguments have done little to appease Hunt, who said he still hopes to work with lawmakers to make wind farms more accountable. He points to the federal tax credits that wind farms receive as only one of the reasons for more oversight.

"This area is often called 'the last great wilderness,'" Hunt said. "Nobody really understands the impact these turbines will have on an area that's so biologically diverse. It's a horrific location."

http://www.dailysentinel.com/search/content/gen/ap/TX_Wind_Farm_Feud.html

[Boojum1]

Re: JeffB

Their reclaimed land was exceptional to the point that native plants, soil chemistry, etc was returned and you would have never know that the land was formerly a strip mine. Many cases the land was better than before the mined it.

"Better" kind of depends on your point of view, IMO.  The Big Brown, Monticello, and Martin Lake mines were mostly reclaimed into big meadows for hay production.  Maybe that's better or more useful in your definition, but I prefer the Post Oak woodland that preceeded it.  

The Jewett mine has mostly played out so they are now using petcoke and Wyoming coal.  The good news is that those are cleaner fuels than Texas lignite.  The TXU plants are also blending Wyoming coal.  Even grandfathered plants have to reduce emissions for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and they are adding controls for Mercury emissions also.  The bad news is that TXU got a permit for 2 more 800MW dirt burners at Oak Grove in Robertson County.  

From 1988 to now, the overall acid emissions from power plants have been reduced significantly.

I'm curious if you ever worked the Sandow mine?

[SHANEA]

Certainly an all star cast of colleges and universities listed in the credits...

Grant to help fund Texas wind turbine research lab   By TOM FOWLER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

A consortium that includes the University of Houston and a number of other academic, government and corporate partners has been chosen to start a wind turbine research lab on the Texas Gulf Coast.

The $2 million Department of Energy grant is modest but will help launch the facility near Corpus Christi and attract more wind business to Texas, said Jerry Patterson, commissioner of the Texas General Land Office.

"Once we build these test facilities, the wind turbine and blade manufacturers will come," Patterson said in a statement.

The group, the Lone Star Wind Alliance, has pledged about $18 million from state and private sources for initial capital and startup costs.

The site for the Texas large-scale wind turbine and blade testing facility will be at Ingleside, just north of Corpus Christi, on a 22-acre site donated by BP. BP also donated $250,000 toward funding the facility.

A consortium in Massachusetts also received a $2 million grant from the DOE. That group pledged $13 million in grants and loans for construction and startup costs, and has established reserve funding of $5 million for future blade design research and testing.

The Lone Star Wind Alliance includes the University of Houston's Cullen College of Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, West Texas A&M University, the Houston Advanced Research Center, Stanford University, Montana State University, New Mexico State University, Old Dominion University, the Texas General Land Office, the State Energy Conservation Office, the Texas Workforce Commission, Governor Rick Perry, Dow Chemical Company, Huntsman and Good Company Associates.

tom.fowler@chron.com

http://http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4917681.html

[JeffB]

I recall the Winfield  and Monticello mining areas several years ago. TXU had reclaimed lots of land with coastal bermuda but they were also aggressively transplanting hundreds of small loblolly pines.  Since loblollies are very fast growing they provide an effiecient "carbon sink".  So there was talk about gaining quick "carbon credits"  based on rapid loblolly growth.  The idea was to absorb carbon dioxide emissions back out of the atmosphere and into the trees, with carbon credits serving as a way to quantify the carbon balance (or imbalance).  The pines could then be harvested for lumber to ensure a semi-permanent sequestering of the carbon.

In any event, I'm surprised to hear that the reclaimed land is not mostly pine forest in east Texas, with coastal bermuda and cows filling in the gaps.

My main point about industrial air pollution is that we as consumers and constituents are much more responsible than the power company.

[JeffB]

Personally, I think these wind tower turbines are awesome.  I really like to see them sprouting like coat hangers and rabbits along I-10 around Iraan.  To me, it's a no brainer to erect as many of these as possible.  

I always wonder why only a few of them are turning at any given time.  Seems like each time I drive past them there are a large number that aren't turning.

[SHANEA]

I always wonder why only a few of them are turning at any given time.  Seems like each time I drive past them there are a large number that aren't turning.

I too have noticed that sometimes.  But then, sometimes everyone of them is fully engaged.  Might have something to do with "demand on the grid"?  I know that the units have a governor on them and at x MPH they shut down.

[bdann]

Interesting doc concerning mine reclamation in TX -

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/divisions/sm/texasamlprojects.pdf

Too bad there aren't any photos of the areas before the mines were there.  They are obviously pouring tons of money into these projects, some credit is definitely due.  I'm not real clear on if these projects are managed by the state or the mine owners.

There are mentions of Brewster County mines here too.

[Boojum1]

Thanks for the link bdann.   The photos of the Alcoa reclamation demonstrate my point about restoring a prairie where an oak forest used to be.  I guess the landowners have some say in what gets put back.  Interesting that the TRRC has regulatory authority over mine reclamation.  They also are the regulator of oil field pollution (guess what:  NO oilfield waste is hazardous).  The Texas lege has pretty much handcuffed all state env'l regulators, though.

[SHANEA]

http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/big_bend.html

This week the Texas Toxic Tour takes you west, to the beautiful mountains and spectacular views of one of Texas' most prized parks - Big Bend National Park. This treasured park is in danger, and this is its story.

Unfortunately, none of their links to articles and research work any longer.   :twisted:

[JeffB]

I'm curious if you ever worked the Sandow mine?

 
Yes, I visited the site at Rockdale several times from 1997 to 2000.  We did very little work with them and I can't really comment on their reclamation work, but the site was absolutely an eyesore.

I don't do any work with the mining companies now and haven't since about 2001.  IMHO, TXU was in a class by itself in Texas.   I'm a big fan of their environmental program.  ALCOA, TMPA, Reliant, NWR, SWEPCO;  not so much.
At risk of sounding like a TXU PR campaign, here are some recent excerpts about their work.:

TXU Mining Wins Ninth National Award for Reclamation Practices; U.S. Department of Interior Recognizes TXU Mining with Director’s Award (2006)
DALLAS, TX -

TXU Mining Company has been awarded the U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining’s (OSM) highest honor for a mining company, the Director’s Award, for TXU Mining’s commitment to outstanding, innovative reclamation practices at its Oak Hill Mine in East Texas.

TXU Mining won the first Director’s Award ever presented, in 1989 for "Exemplary Commitment to the Environment", and was honored with the award again in 1999. This is TXU Mining’s third national award in four years, and its ninth overall.

Oak Hill Mine’s reclamation project in the 2,000-acre D-1 mining area began in 1986 and concluded in 1995, successfully re-establishing beneficial land uses and new natural resources. This project included practices such as creating a wetlands environment for fish, birds and other wildlife; establishing a breeding population of wood ducks; and planting a pine forest to be used for commercial timber.

Oak Hill Mine also received the Railroad Commission of Texas’ State Reclamation Award earlier this year – the seventh straight year TXU Mining has won this statewide award. Oak Hill Mine, located 5 miles east of Henderson, covers approximately 26,000 acres in Rusk County.

Reclaimed land is used for cattle grazing, crops, commercial timber, wildlife habitat, and wetlands, and is often more productive than the original. In some instances, hay production per acre is twice that from nearby unmined land. TXU has planted 15 million trees of numerous varieties as part of the land restoration program.

TXU is recognized as an innovator and a leader in all areas of environmental stewardship. TXU is the first energy companies in the state--and one of the few utilities in the nation--to receive official tree farm certification from the American Forest Foundation. The designation recognizes good forest management on TXU's reclaimed lignite coal mine land.

TXU is also a recipient of the Edison Electric Institute annual National Land Management Award, presented for outstanding dedication and consistent work to preserve nature and wildlife, education of future environmentalists and environmental scientists, and conservationist work.

Deer, foxes, egrets, ducks, and geese are among the many animals sharing the habitats TXU has created on reclaimed land. The 12,000 acres of reclaimed land at the Big Brown mine, near Fairfield, Texas, have become home to endangered or threatened species including American bald eagles and ospreys who winter every year at Lake Fairfield, built to cool the Big Brown power plant.

In 1997, the endangered Interior Least Tern decided to make nesting grounds of two mined and leveled areas of Big Brown mine. TXU partnered with several government agencies and Texas A&M University to develop a protected habitat for them. The least terns returned to the site in 1998 to nest again.

[RichardM]

http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/big_bend.html

Unfortunately, none of their links to articles and research work any longer.   :twisted:

Have you tried The WAYBACK Machine?  I'm having problems connecting to it today...

[Boojum1]

I don't do any work with the mining companies now and haven't since about 2001. IMHO, TXU was in a class by itself in Texas. I'm a big fan of their environmental program. ALCOA, TMPA, Reliant, NWR, SWEPCO; not so much.

My last experience with the utility companies was in 1999.  The head of the env'l dept at TXU for many years was a biologist, so perhaps he left a legacy.  I didn't see the Oak Hill mines, only the BBSES and Monticello mines.  I liked CSW(SWEPCO, CPL, WTU, PSO) a lot as  clients, but they changed a lot when AEP bought them out.  Big Brown and Monticello reclamations were large hay meadows in the midst of Post Oak Savannah, as I previously posted, but if they restored Oak Hill to Pine woodlands (as would be appropriate for that area) then that is a good thing.  I did know a lot of their env'l staff in Dallas...mostly good folk, though I dealt exclusively in air issues.