A-bomb survivor trees

Citizen Science in Disaster and Conflict Resilience presented at ESA

Citizen science in disaster and conflict resilience esa 2010

View more presentations from Keith Tidball.

Ecology of Environmental Education Presented at ESA

Tidball joins the journal Ecology and Society editorial board.

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/about/editors.php .

Emergence

Had to post this... emergence being so important to resilience...

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2005/02/18

Trees please

Trees please

Citizen involvement in wetland restoration

See also a related report in the Cayuga Lake Watershed News here.

View more presentations from Keith Tidball.

INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL GRANT AWARD

EINAUDI CENTER INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL GRANT AWARDS

Keith Tidball was among the 62 research travel grants for the 2010-2011 academic year awarded by the Einaudi Center. The recipients came from a variety of graduate fields across seven colleges. Most recipients (40%) are headed to Asia. A sizable number are traveling to Europe (25%), Africa (25%) and Latin America (10%) respectively.

Tidball's research proposal is titled "Greening and Greenspace as Conflict Amelioration in a South African Informal Settlement."

To view recipients of travel grants and explore the new interactive world map that provides an overview of their destinations, see http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/funding/tg_recipients.asp.

URBIS Partnership Proposal presented at World Urban Forum, 22-26 March 2010, Brazil

A Conversation with Students in Stockholm

I was invited to speak with a group of about a 100 young people attending Global College, an upper secondary school that is located in the center of Stockholm, the capital of Sweden. Global College is a public school with approximately 400 students between the ages of 16-19, and 25 teachers. All public schooling in Sweden is free of charge and co-educational.

Thomas Elmqvist from the Stockholm Resilience Center spoke about global change and teh importance of resilient strategies for the urban environment. I spoke with the students about New York City's Million Trees campaign. The questions these students asked were insightful and plentiful. I was impressed. And I was proud of New York City.

Presentation at Stockholm Resilience Center

Memory and disaster resilience src mar 2010

View more presentations from Keith Tidball.

NYC Million Trees Symposium a success

Click here for the Cornell Chronicle news story about the event.

Presentation at NYC Million Trees Symposium

Krasny & tidball mtnyc 2010

View more presentations from Keith Tidball.

New article published in the Journal of Extension

Civic Ecology: Linking Social and Ecological Approaches in Extension

Marianne E. Krasny, Cornell University

Keith G. Tidball, Cornell University

Civic ecology refers to the philosophy and science of community forestry, community gardening, watershed enhancement, and other volunteer-driven restoration practices in cities and elsewhere. Such practices, although often viewed as initiatives to improve a degraded environment, also foster social attributes of resilient social-ecological systems, including volunteer engagement and social connectedness. Civic ecology education refers to the learning, as well as the social and ecosystem outcomes, that occur when young people and other novices engage alongside experienced adults in civic ecology practice. As Extension considers its role in civic ecology education, there will be opportunities for both participation and leadership.

Click here for the full article.

UNESCO URBIS Partnerships concept

I have been working with colleagues at UNESCO NYO and the Stockholm Resilience Center, among others to build upon the work of CUBES to promote the concept of urban biosphere reserves. This concept was explored in depth in the book Urban Biosphere and Society: Partnership of Cities, edited by my colleague Christine Alfsen-Norodom.

Taking cues from the New York State Agricultural Environmental Management program's multi-tiered approach to stewardship, we are now working towards a designation process that uses a tiered approach to enable cities to work their way through comprehensive planning processes that link social and ecological sustainability. Successful implementation of five "urban sustainable comprehensive planning" tiers is envisioned to result in high-visibility designations of cities as "URBIS Partnership Cities of Distinction."

This prototypical concept is a work in progress, and is expected to be unveiled at a UNESCO URBIS Open House on March 4,2010, and in more depth at a poster presentation at the Million Trees NYC Research Symposium March 5-6, 2010.

New Article Published in the journal Cities and the Environment

Community Gardens as Contexts for Science, Stewardship,and Civic Action Learning

Marianne E. Krasny, Cornell University
Keith G. Tidball, Cornell University

Community gardens are heterogeneous environments that integrate environmental restoration, community activism, social interactions, cultural expression, and food security. As such, they provide a context for learning that addresses multiple societal goals, including a populace that is scientifically literate, practices environmental stewardship, and participates in civic life. Several theories are useful in describing the learning that occurs in community gardens, including those focusing on learning as acquisition of content by individuals, learning as interaction with other individuals and the environment and as increasingly skilled levels of participation in a community of practice, and social learning among groups of stakeholders leading to concerted action to enhance natural resources. In this paper, we use preliminary evidence from the Garden Mosaics intergenerational education program to suggest the potential for community gardens to foster multiple types of learning.

Click HERE for the full article.

Social Life of Trees- American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting 2009 presentation

Trees and Rebirth: Resilience, Ritual and Symbol in Community‐based Urban Reforestation Recovery Efforts in Post‐Katrina New Orleans

View more documents from Keith Tidball.

Tidball et al., 2009. "The Case for a Community Greening Research Agenda." Community Greening Review. ACGA; Columbus OH

Newly published, the most recent edition of the Community Greening Review is focused on research and features some of the big names in greening scholarship, including Frances Kuo, Rachel Kaplan, Laura Lawson, Bill Sullivan, and others.

Click on the photo to access the PDF at the ACGA website.

Tidball et al., 2009. "The Case for a Community Greening Research Agenda." Community Greening Review, Vol. 13. American Community Gardening Association: Columbus, OH.

Urban green space as provisioning and regulating ecosystem services - thoughts on escaping the "Cultural services" catch-all

Ecosystem service provision is a rapidly growing field of inquiry and policy making.  In urban social-ecological systems, ecosystem services are an important way of placing additional focus and value on “green infrastructure.”  Unfortunately, current understanding of urban natural resources and their subsequent valuing in ecosystem services terms does not optimize awareness or prioritization of these features and functions of the urban landscape.  This is a result of how urban natural resources are often categorized, as primarily cultural service providers as opposed to regulatory or provisioning services.  This paper explores a critical argument that urban natural resources, for example trees, community gardens, and other green space are sometimes misplaced in the “cultural services” category, especially when urban trees and other urban natural resources are considered as only or exclusively providing cultural (aesthetic, spiritual, or recreational)  ecosystem services.  Further, by drawing on the horticultural therapy and other “nature contact” literatures, this paper makes the argument that one could (perhaps should) consider trees and greenspaces as producing provisioning and regulating services rather than just cultural services.    This paper contributes to a much-needed synthesis of the human health benefits of green space to the ecosystem services and resilience discourse, but also points out that some cultural ecological services provided by the presence of certain “green infrastructure” might be in conflict with efforts to manage for other regulatory ecosystem services in the same SES (narrow scale), as in the case of a gardener growing an invasive species in an urban community garden, for example.

Currently, Pickett’s diagram describes “cultural” ecosystem services as “aesthetic, spiritual, or recreational,”  “provisioning” ecosystem services as “food, fiber, fuel,” and “regulating” ecosystem services as nutrient filtration and retention, carbon sequestration, and pest and disease suppression.  Cultural ecosystem services are the third category, indicating recognition of them, but ranking them (intentionally or not) as least important.  Provisioning services are second. Regulating are first.  I don’t take issue with that ordering.  What I DO take issue with is that some ecologists often place urban trees, or urban green space into the cultural category.  They argue that the trees in Manhattan, for example, serve mostly aesthetic purposes.  I agree that they do serve aesthetic purposes, but this neglects an important point, which is that they may not serve exclusively cultural services.

Focusing on “provisioning services” for a moment, I argue that these things can generically be considered provision of basic needs for humans to thrive.  Now, if one considers the copious literature on the benefits of green space, trees, etc on both physical and mental health in urban contexts, then urban green space is contributing far more than just cultural ecosystem services.  If one considers the health benefits of green space, trees, etc in urban areas, then these green spaces are AT LEAST contributing  “provisioning services.” 

Focusing now on “regulating services,” it is does not appear to be difficult to link all the aforementioned peer-reviewed literature on physical and mental health benefits of green space to the notion of pest and disease suppression among humans and other species of concern within the SES of interest.  It just hasn't been done yet to my knowledge.  If it HAS been done in the ecosystem services literature, I am pretty sure it hasn't been done in the resilience framework.  Stay tuned.

Resilience presentation added to Urban Forestry South Expo Library

The presentation I made in Stockholm at the Resilience Conference in 2008 has been added to the Urban Forestry South Expo. Click on the image for more...

CFERP 2009 Poster and Presentation

Poster

C F E R P 09 Presentation

View more presentations from kgtidball.

A New Orleans Tree Trooper Speaks Out

 

Growing safe affordable good food in the City of Buffalo New York

Will Allen, the winner of a 2008 Mc Arthur Foundation “Genius Grant” along with two other Growing Power staffs will lead a training in Buffalo NY on Saturday Sept 5th and Sunday Sept 6th. Growing Power will work with the Community Action Organization (CAO) of Erie County New York which is lead by Executive Director L. Nathan. This partnership will lead the training in building a green house, aquaponics system, compost and vermicompost system. The goal of this infrastructure development and training is to inspire, engage and teach residents how to grow safe, healthy and affordable good food; food grown without the use of chemicals.



“This project will help more people join the Good Food Revolution that’s underway,” said Will Allen, founder and CEO of Growing Power. Buffalo’s Mayor Byron Brown has endorsed this project and will be in attendance over the weekend.


“We need to learn to grow good food closer to where people live. These systems show how we can accomplish this in a very small area using intensive, sustainable practices. ”

–Will Allen, CEO of Growing Power



Growing Power is a national non profit organization and land trust based in Milwaukee with outreach training centers throughout the United States and around the world.




Additional Contact Information:

Community Action Organization | 70 Harvard Place | Buffalo, NY 14209

716-881-5150

NOLA Recovery Update

Congress Introduces Community Garden Bills!

Jay Inslee of Washington just introduced HR 3225: The Community Gardens Act of 2009 "To help provide funds for community gardens, and for other purposes" and Doris Matsui of California introduced a resolution Supporting the goals and ideals of National Community Gardening Awareness Month. I've posted the resolution text below.

Best of all, Inslee's got a total of 18 co-sponsors for his bill, including:
Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU]
Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Del. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR3]
Rep. André Carson [D-IN7]
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D-MO5]
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]
Rep. Donna Edwards [D-MD4]
Rep. Eliot Engel [D-NY17]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ7]
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D-OH9]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA9]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY14]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA5]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA3]
Rep. Dennis Moore [D-KS3]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA8]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA6]

If you see your representative listed here, please thank them! If you don't, drop them a line and tell them you support these two measures and you'd like them to co-sponsor them!

More Defiant Gardens Fort Drum Press

Click on the picture for the story from the Fort Drum newspaper.

The Cornell Chronicle also recently ran a story on Defiant Gardens...you can read it here.

Finally, the Children and Nature Forum newsletter recently featured Defiant Gardens. See below or see a pdf of the Defiant Gardens section of the newsletter here.

Behind the Scenes at the Forum

act, meet and learn about the National Forum on Children and Nature. In this issue: act: American Community Gardening Association - Project Ecopolis meet: Charles O. Holliday, Jr., DuPont learn: The Built Environment Useful Links Sign Up for this Newsletter » Visit the National Forum on Children and Nature online » Visit The Conservation Fund online » We are now on Facebook: The National Forum on Children and Nature act: American Community Gardening Association - Project Ecopolis Gardens are a source of food and flowers - tending them can be soothing and satisfying. This is true for people with yards and for those living in cities, when community gardens are nearby. The goal of Project Ecopolis is to share the benefits of gardening with children who work alongside adult community gardeners to grow vegetables and herbs from around the world. Gardens can also be a place to renew and reintegrate for children, families and soldiers returning from combat. This is why Project Ecopolis began work at Fort Drum, NY, the most heavily deployed unit in the US military, to give members of the military and their families "common ground." Project Ecopolis' Defiant Gardens, in partnership with Cornell University, is a program to plant gardens on military bases and throughout nearby military communities. Starting in July, the Defiant Gardens 4-H program will also send container gardens to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. "Gardens provide a different opportunity than any other support because it's in nature, and it's a less obvious way of bringing people together and forming community," says Jeremiah Maxon, Cornell Cooperative Extension's Defiant Gardens 4-H educator in Jefferson County, NY. "It helps meet needs that military families might not know they have. A military family might not think to join a community garden when a parent deploys, but [doing so] brings them back to nature and to the community." The program launches this summer with eight gardens in deployment-affected communities in NY, while 12 container gardens will be growing in Afghanistan, tended by the 3-71 Cavalry Unit where many members from these communities are deployed. Cornell Professor Marianne Krasny, who led the development of the Garden Mosaics intergenerational urban community gardening program, notes that community gardening is getting a lot of attention these days. "Michele Obama planted a garden on the White House lawn and Secretary Vilsack has called for community gardens outside USDA facilities. Such gardens have the potential not only to help kids eat healthy food and get exercise, but also to help them connect with parents and other adults in their communities. Such community connections - and connections with nature - are critical for kids' healthy development." Support Project Ecopolis >> meet: Charles O. Holliday, Jr., DuPont On January 1, 2009, after ten years as CEO of DuPont, Charles O. Holliday, Jr. retired, retaining his position as Chairman of the Board. During his time as CEO of DuPont, Mr. Holliday helped transform the chemical company to become a leader in the next generation of transformative technologies. He forged the way by embracing the concept of sustainable development, believing that economic growth, social progress, and environmental balance are not mutually exclusive goals. Mr. Holliday's efforts were rewarded in early May when he received the 2009 International Palladium Medal from the American Section of the Société de Chimie Industrielle, a prestigious award that recognizes his efforts to globalize the industry and advance science through the integration of biology and chemistry. When it comes to the environment, Mr. Holliday has seen evidence of climate change and has committed his company to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. He understands that restricting emissions now can help businesses avoid risks in the future, such as the buildup of heat-trapping gases that can eventually cause flooding or droughts. With this in mind, Mr. Holliday led the way to support government action in capping emissions and installing a trading system by which companies that are able to cost-effectively reduce their emissions can sell emission allowances to others that can't. He has built on the firm's long tradition of technology advances and has shown how a for-profit enterprise can prosper in a world wrestling with economic, social, and environmental change. learn: The Built Environment: Designing Communities to Promote Physical Activity in Children A child's life is affected by the environment in which he or she lives. Relationships between health and the quality of air, water, and food are well recognized. The physical environments of the home and school also influence health through exposures to lead, mold, noise, or ambient light. The overall structure of the physical environment of a child's community (referred to as the "built environment") can also affect health in diverse ways. As cities have expanded into rural areas, large tracts of land have been transformed into low-density developments in a "leapfrog" manner. The resultant urban sprawl can increase automobile travel, which increases air pollution as well as passenger and pedestrian traffic fatalities. Some urban areas may have few supermarkets, produce stands, or community gardens, thereby limiting access to fresh fruits and vegetables. The physical environment of a community can support opportunities for play, an essential component of child development, and for physical activity, a health behavior that not only reduces risk of excess weight gain, but also has many other benefits for overall well-being. Read more of this article at the American Academy of Pediatrics website.

Seneca Wild Harvest Table

A poster I co-authored with my wife Moira Tidball was presented entitled "Exploring Fish and Game as a Component of Local Food Systems: Seneca County CCE’s Wild Harvest Table Project” at the Enhancing Local and Regional Food Systems: Exploring the Research, What Works, and What We Need to Learn workshop, Hudson Valley Resort, Kerhonkson, NY, May 2009.

To see the poster, click on the image.

World Environmental Education Congress 2009 Presentation

This paper was presented at the 5th World Environmental Education Congress 2009 in Montreal, Canada. Click on the image to see the presentation.

"Defiant Gardens" Military Families

The Defiant Gardens Military Families Project has opened the planting season with a bang.

The program was featured on a local news program recently, and yesterday, kicked off the planting season at Fort Drum with a workshop and planting day with project collaborators from The Growing Connection. My photos of this event can be found here.

For background on the project, read the funded proposal here.

Cornell College Of Agriculture and Life Sciences Fights for Urban Well-being

The Spring 2009 issue of CALS News highlights urban research and extension work within Cornell's College Of Agriculture and Life Sciences, including my work.

See the article here.

Million Trees NYC Work Shop a Success

The Million Trees NYC Research Workshop was a resounding success. We had a great turnout of researchers and practitioners, worked hard, and developed a draft research agenda which is to be published very soon. Below is a recap of the conference:

Agenda
Directions to all workshop locations are available at http://tinyurl.com/MTNYClocations
Click on each marker to create custom driving, transit or walking directions from your location.

Tuesday 28 April, 6-8pm
Welcome reception
The Arsenal roof, 830 Fifth Avenue (at East 64th Street and Fifth Avenue, just inside Central Park)
Speakers:
Adrian Benepe, Commissioner, City of New York Parks & Recreation (NYC Parks)
Drew Becher, Executive Director of New York Restoration Project (NYRP)
Michael Rains, Director, US Forest Service Northern Research Station

Wednesday 29 April, 8:30-11:00am (breakfast at 8 am)
Opportunities for Research and Collaboration in the Context of MillionTreesNYC
Gracie Mansion, East End Avenue at 88th Street
Speakers:
Susan Donoghue, Assistant Commissioner for PlaNYC, NYC Parks
Cristiana Fragola and Megan Shane, Directors for MillionTreesNYC, NYC Parks and NYRP
Fiona Watt, Assistant Commissioner for Forestry, Horticulture & Natural Resources, NYC Parks
Morgan Grove, Research Social Scientist, US Forest Service Northern Research Station
Timon McPhearson, Assistant Professor of Ecology, The New School
David Maddox, Chief Scientist, Sound Science

Wednesday 29 April, 11:15-5:30pm
Field visits to MillionTreesNYC planting and research locations
Locations around New York City, transportation and bag lunch provided
Field visits to MillionTreesNYC planting and research locations across a variety of site typologies such as street trees, public housing grounds and natural area reforestation. At each site there will be presentations and discussion by practitioners and researchers concerning current work, challenges to success, and the needs and opportunities for research.

Thursday 30 April, 8:30-5:00pm
Federal Building, 290 Broadway (at Duane St), 30th Floor
Opening Talk: What MillionTreesNYC and the City of New York can offer researchers
Jacqueline Lu, Director of Research & Analysis, Forestry, Horticulture & Natural Resources, NYC Parks
Introduction to the process of the day
David Maddox, Chief Scientist, Sound Science
Small groups to develop thematic research agendas in diverse topics
Facilitated breakout sessions and discussions in small groups, each of which develop a draft research agenda (i.e., research questions) in one of several subject areas. All workshop attendees to participate in two groups of their choice, one in the morning and one in the afternoon.
Subject areas include:
• Economic impacts
• Labor markets / green jobs
• Ecosystem services: local air quality and urban heat island
• Implications of scale (regional, climate, watersheds, population, etc)
• Green infrastructure and planting site design
• Reforestation dynamics and forest health
• Human health, well-being and quality of life
• Stewardship, civic engagement and social capital
• Ecosystem services: water quality and stormwater management
• Wildlife biodiversity and ecological communities
• Social justice and MillionTreesNYC
• Education and ecological literacy

Friday 1 May 9:00am-1pm
Federal Building, 290 Broadway (at Duane St), 30th Floor
Opening talk: Synthesizing an interdisciplinary research agenda
Keith Tidball, Associate Director of Initiative for Civic Ecology, Cornell University
Keynote: Building science collaborations between cities and researchers: Lessons from the Baltimore Ecosystem Study
Steward T.A. Pickett, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Discussion: Review and Q&A for each of Thursday’s topics
Designated leaders from each Topic Group. Open discussion with emphasis on opportunities for collaboration and cross-disciplinary work.

Million Trees NYC Workshop

Social Learning-Towards a Sustainable World

A year ago, a colleague edited a book entitled Social Learning: Towards a Sustainable World in which Dr. Krasny and I had a chapter. Recently a student wanted a copy of the book and any reviews I was aware of. Having collected the reviews, I thought it would be useful to post them here.


Book review in International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, by J. Dillon 2007.

Book review in The Innovation Journal, by H. Doughty, 2008.

Book review in the Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, by J. Fien, 2007.

Civic Engagement in Achieving Greener Communities

I recently presented "Civic Ecology for Greener Communities," an invited presentation at the Achieving Greener Communities Through Civic, Private, and Government Sector Innovations conference, a one-day conference of the Rural Learning Network of Central and Western New York. Mt. Morris, NY October 2008.


























For my presentation, click Here.

Creating Resilience in Sustainable Communities

To see the presentation I gave, entitled Civic Ecology: Resilience Thinking in Urban Social-Ecological Systems, click here.

For a news story on my presentation entitled Civic Ecology: Resilience Thinking in Urban Social-Ecological Systems, click here.


The Syracuse Center of Excellence (SyracuseCoE) introduced Central Upstate New York to the best "green and clean" practices of urban development, neighborhood revitalization, technological innovation, and environmental stewardship at its 8th Annual Syracuse Symposium on Environmental and Energy Systems at the Oncenter, Syracuse, Sept. 29 and 30, 2008.

This year's Symposium theme was "Creating Resilience in Sustainable Communities." The two-day event surveyed the latest ideas and advancements in the fields of resilient human and natural environments (environments able to withstand both natural and human-made changes); sustainable design of homes, neighborhoods, and communities; and clean and green products and services that will benefit this generation and generations to come.

The keynote speaker was Majora Carter, one of the nation's pioneers in successful green-collar job training and placement systems. Carter founded Sustainable South Bronx in 2001 to achieve environmental justice through economically sustainable projects informed by community needs. She is a MacArthur "Genius" Fellow, one of Essence Magazine's "Most Influential African-Americans," one of the New York Post's "Most Influential NYC Women" for the past two years, a board member of the Wilderness Society, and she is recording a special National Public Radio series called "The Promised Land" for 2009 release. Learn more at majoracartergroup.com.

Other notable speakers included:

• Marty Anderies of Arizona State University's Global Institute for Sustainability, recognized as one the most comprehensive and integrated sustainability institutes in the nation;
• Paul Beyer, New York State's Director of Smart Growth, who is helping implement new groundbreaking policies at the state's town, county, and regional levels;
• Kevin Surace, CEO of Serious Materials, who leads his company's mission to reduce energy usage and CO2 generation of the world's largest contributor: our buildings;
• Keith Tidball, a recognized innovator at Cornell University's Civic Ecology Initiative, who will speak about how civic participation plays a role in urban resilience;
• David Doyle of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Kansas, who is helping tornado-stricken Greensburg, Kan. rebuild "green."
• Matt Raimi of Californian firm Raimi+Associates, who will address his work in the Syracuse's Near West Side neighborhood and its status as one of just a few LEED-Neighborhood Development projects in the United States;
• John Spengler of Harvard and Peter Nielsen of Aalborg University, Denmark, two of the world's leading experts in indoor environmental quality research and technology development.

Snake Handling Comes Under Scrutiny

My work from the 1990's on Serpent-handling in Appalachia has resurfaced in a news piece on a public radio station in Louisville, KY. Follow the link below.

Snake Handling Comes Under Scrutiny

For more on Serpent-handling and my research, see The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture article on the subject.





Posted using ShareThis

Rethinking Peaceparks as Social Ecological Systems

Presentation at Ecological Society of America meetings, 2008.

Urban Community Forestry and Resilience

Click here for my presentation, or to see it recorded "live" click here (best with Windows Internet Explorer).

Polar Bear listing and old ANWR drilling debates

As many are aware, the polar bear was recently list by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as "threatened." Many are weighing in with opinions. Not so long ago, I conducted a thought exercise wherein I acted in the role of a lawyer ( I know, strange fantasy indeed) who was legal council to a petroleum firm in the midst of deciding how to proceed given the BLM's recent decisions on drilling in ANWR. For reading pleasure, here it is:

Memorandum

TO: American Petroleum Institute Board of Directors/CEO/CFO

FROM: Chief Counsel to the American Petroleum Institute

RE: Potential Legal Challenges to BLM Decision re Drilling in ANWR

DATE: 20 Dec 2006

Question Presented

(a) Under which laws could environmentalists and other opponents challenge private oil

exploration at ANWR? Specify which claims they are likely to make, and, given the

facts above, discuss their chances of success.

(b) What difference, if any, would it make if the polar bear were listed as threatened?

Short Answer

(a) There are a number of legal challenges that can be expected regarding environmental concerns over exploration of ANWR. They range from obvious challenges, such as compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge purposes[1], Endangered Species Act (ESA)[2] and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)[3] protections, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)[4] compliance, ambiguity over lead agency status within the Department of the Interior, speculation on the Wilderness Act[5], and enforceability of the International Polar Bear Agreement[6], to more subtle and nuanced legal challenges involving Section 311 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)[7], dealing with oil spills and wetland protections respectively, and Native Lands issues.

(b) If the polar bear were listed as a threatened species, the voracity of a number of these legal challenges would be increased significantly.

Statement of Facts

The debate continues as to whether to allow energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Sharp increases in recent energy prices, terrorist attacks, and energy infrastructure damage from hurricanes have intensified debate. Few onshore US areas are as interesting to industry as is ANWR. At the same time, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and some Native groups. The refuge is rich in fauna, flora, and oil extraction potential. Current law prohibits oil and gas leasing in the Refuge.[8]

Opponents of drilling argue that intrusions on such a remarkable ecosystem are not justifiable under any circumstances; that oil found would provide little energy security and could be replaced by cost-effective alternatives, including conservation; and that job claims are exaggerated. They maintain that development’s footprints would have a greater impact than is implied by a limit on total acreage.[9]

The Refuge, especially the coastal plain, is home to a wide variety of plants and animals. The numbers of polar bears, caribou, grizzly bears, wolves, migratory birds, and other species in ANWR has led some to call the area “America’s Serengeti,”[10] and several species found in the area are protected by international treaties or agreements.[11]

The legal history of the ANWR area, consistent with the current debate, is politically charged. In 1957, an application was filed to the withdraw lands in northeastern Alaska to create an “Arctic National Wildlife Range.” In 1960, after statehood, the Secretary of the Interior reserved the area as the Arctic National Wildlife Range.[12] The potential for oil and gas leasing was expressly preserved.

In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act[13] to resolve all Native aboriginal land claims against the US. ANCSA provided for payments and created Village Corporations that received 22 million surface acres of lands in Alaska, including some in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Subsurface rights in Refuges were not available.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980[14] renamed the Range as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and expanded it to include another 9.2 million acres. Though Section 702(3) designated much of the original Refuge as wilderness, the coastal plain and the newer portions of the Refuge did not receive wilderness status. Instead, Congress postponed decisions on the development or further protection of the coastal plain. Section 1002 directed a study of ANWR’s “coastal plain” and its resources. Section 1003 of ANILCA prohibited oil and gas development in the entire Refuge unless authorized by an act of Congress.

Discussion

1. The most obvious potential challenge arises from the order that Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decide whether to authorize drilling in ANWR. Opponents are likely to take issue with the designation of BLM as the lead agency in the ANWR decision. Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act[15] it is the Secretary of the Interior acting “through the US Fish and Wildlife Service” who administers Refuge lands. This language was added by Congress in 1976 to ensure that management of refuges could not be assigned to other agencies.[16] Under current law, the Director of the FWS may approve an activity only if it is compatible with the purposes for which the System and the particular unit were created.[17] The Refuge Administration Act does not close refuges to possible oil and gas leasing, but many individual units are withdrawn and leasing is rare.

Although BLM, another agency also in the Department of the Interior, is often the mineral development manager for the US,[18] the Mineral Leasing Act[19] does not specify that the Secretary of the Interior must administer leasing through them. Current mineral leasing regulations recognize the authority of FWS over the wildlife resources on refuge lands and, with respect to oil and gas leasing in Refuges, reserve considerable authority to the Director of FWS.[20]

Given that there are no statutory requirements that mineral leasing be through BLM, and that since 1976 there is a statutory requirement that management of refuges be by the Secretary through FWS, it is not clear by what authority BLM is the lead agency with respect to leasing in refuges. Even if the Refuge Administration Act could be interpreted as only addressing the surface management of refuges, one could ask whether the approval of the Secretary of leasing in refuges must be given through FWS, with the concurrence of the Director of FWS.[21]

Reducing the role of FWS by placing BLM in charge of the leasing program for ANWR could separate the mineral development aspects from the biological/wildlife purposes and the expertise of FWS personnel, possibly resulting in the coastal plain of ANWR receiving less protection than lands in other refuges. It is difficult to forecast whether or not congress is prepared to legislate in this direction, but it is clearly possible, and might best represent the American Petroleum Institutes’ interests.

2. A second obvious and likely challenge is based on the argument that oil drilling is not an intended or compatible use for National Wildlife Refuges. Under current law for the management of national wildlife refuges,[22] and under 43 C.F.R. §3101.5-3 for Alaskan refuges specifically, an activity may be allowed in a refuge only if it is compatible with the purposes of the particular Refuge and with those of the Refuge System as a whole. New proposed legislation[23] states that the “energy leasing program and activities in the coastal plain are deemed to be compatible with the purposes for which ANWR was established and that no further findings or decisions are required to implement this determination,” apparently eliminating the usual compatibility determination processes. However, the extent of “activities” that might be compatible is debatable and could include support activities, such as construction and operation of port facilities, staging areas, and personnel centers. These support activities could trigger legal challenges and stand reasonable chances of success given the history of ANWR, and the history and intent of the National Wildlife Refuge System coupled with public attachment.

3. BLM approved oil exploration and drilling in the 1002 Area of ANWR without further hearing, investigation, or public comment. BLM stated that the concerns of environmentalists rely on outdated data and, regardless of environmental impact, established a linkage between foreign oil dependence and national sustainable development. This decision will likely face legal challenges under NEPA.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969[24] requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to examine major federal actions with significant effects on the environment, and to provide public involvement in agency decisions. The last full EIS examining development in ANWR was completed in 1987. Some assert that a new EIS is needed to support development now. NEPA requires an EIS to analyze an array of alternatives, including a “no action” alternative. Some development supporters want the process streamlined, in light of past analyses and to hasten production. Opponents, and NEPA supporters, argue that the 19-year gap and changed circumstances since the last analysis require an update, and stress flaws in the 1987 FLEIS.

One version of proposed new legislation to address this concern would deem the 1987 FLEIS to satisfy NEPA requirements with respect to pre-lease activities and the development of leasing regulations, and require the Secretary to prepare an EIS of all other actions before the first lease sale.[25] Alternatives would be limited to two choices, a preferred leasing action and a “single leasing alternative.” Compliance would satisfy all requirements to analyze the environmental effects of proposed leasing. Another House bill was essentially identical.[26] A Senate bill has similar provisions, but did not expressly require an EIS for leasing.[27]

4. Perhaps the most volatile issues, and the most likely source of legal challenges, are the protected, endangered, and threatened wildlife issues. The list of charismatic species inhabiting ANWR is indeed impressive. Some, including the polar bear, are facing reductions in numbers globally. The prospect of one of these charismatic species, most likely the polar bear, being listed as “threatened or endangered” under the ESA is, at minimum, significantly problematic.

Concern regarding the protection of marine mammals, including the polar bear, grew in the 1960s. In 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted. In 1973, the US, Canada, Denmark, Norway and the former USSR developed an international agreement on polar bear conservation.[28] This Agreement was ratified by the US in 1976. It prohibits the “take” of polar bears, defined as “hunting, killing and capturing.”[29] Article III describes five exceptions to the taking prohibition, including several relating to traditional take by a party’s nationals; take for scientific purposes, for conservation purposes, or to prevent serious disturbance of the management of other living resources.

Critics assert that oil and gas development in the Arctic may violate the Agreement because development could result in the death of polar bears. While the MMPA permits the unintentional taking of polar bears incidental to other lawful activities, such take would be inconsistent with the Agreement because there is no exception for such take in Article I or III. “If a lethal take were to occur during activities conducted under incidental take authority, the United States arguably could be considered to not be in compliance with the Agreement.”[30] According to animal law scholar Donald Baur, “...because there is potential for polar bears to be lethally taken incidental to activities such as oil and gas operations, it is necessary to either amend the Agreement or to amend the MMPA to prohibit such takes if consistency with the Agreement is the goal.”[31]

All of this is of course a moot point if the polar bear is listed as threatened or endangered under ESA. Currently, only two other species are listed under the ESA in ANWR, the peregrine falcon and the bowhead whale, neither of which would be significantly affected by development. The polar bear, on the other hand, is known to den in the 2002 area of ANWR. In that case, sections 9 and 10 of ESA would come into play, specifically provisions that prevent the taking or harming of species, including acts which actually kills or injures wildlife such as significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.[32] It would be difficult to prove that infrastructure development for oil and gas drilling would in no way modify or degrade habitat.

5. Other more peripheral legal challenges potentially exist, among them the aforementioned Clean Water Act as it relates to oil spills and wetlands, the Wilderness Act and possible wilderness designation actions for the 2002 section, and native lands issues. However, as these are far less likely to arise, they are not covered in detail in this memo.[33]

Conclusion

The American Petroleum Institute should anticipate legal challenges to oil and gas drilling in ANWR as described above. In efforts to keep legal options “open” and protect interests, it may be advisable to study proposed legislation that takes favorable positions as regards items 1-3 and marshal lobbying efforts accordingly and as appropriate. In terms of item 4, it may be prudent to commission scientific studies that demonstrate polar bear resilience to human activity and adaptability to various habitat types, as well as build alliances with other industries that are favorable to updating ESA. It may also be advisable to consider a legal defense fund.

---

[1] http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/nwrsact.html

[2] http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/esa.html

[3] http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/mmpa.html

[4] http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/nepa.html

[5] http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/wildact.html

[6] http://pbsg.npolar.no/ConvAgree/agreement.htm

[7] http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/fwpca.html

[8] CRS Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.

[9] Opposition to drilling in ANWR arguments can be found variously at http://www.alaskawild.org/ , http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canam/washington/shared_env/default-en.asp , http://www.protectthearctic.com/ or http://www.tws.org/OurIssues/Arctic/index.cfm?TopLevel=Home

[10] http://www.wilderness.org/OurIssues/Arctic/about.cfm

[11] Basic information on the Refuge can be found in CRS Report RL31278, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues, by M. Lynne Corn, coordinator, (hereafter cited as CRS Report RL31278).

[12] Public Land Order 2214.

[13] ANCSA, P.L. 92-203

[14] ANILCA, P.L.96-487, 94 Stat. 2371

[15] 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(1).

[16] P.L. 94-223, 90 Stat. 199.

[17] 16 U.S.C. 668dd(d).

[18] See Secretarial Order 3087, December 2, 1982, as amended February 7, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 8983).

[19] http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/minerall.html

[20] See 43 C.F.R. § 3101.5-1 and 43 C.F.R. § 3101.5-4.

[21] This observation and resulting legal question/argument from CRS Report Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by Pamela Baldwin, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, 2002, p5.

[22] 16 U.S.C.§668dd

[23] Section 3(c) of H.R. 5429, §3(c) of H.R. 2863, and §4001(c) of S. 1932

[24] NEPA, P.L. 91-190; 43 U.S.C. §§4321-4347

[25] Section 3(c) of H.R. 5429

[26] H.R. 2863 (Division C, §3(c))

[27] S. 1932 (§4001(c))

[28] Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, T.I.A.S. No. 8409, 27 U.S.T. 3918 (Nov.

15, 1973).

[29] Id., art.I(2).

[30] Draft Report to Congress on Status of United States Implementation of the 1073

International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, Prepared by U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, October, 1997.

[31] Donald C. Baur, Reconciling Polar Bear Protection under United States Laws and the

International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears, 2 ANIMAL LAW 9, 85

(1996).

[32] 50 CFR § 17.3 (1994)

[33] More information available in these subjects upon request.