This does not bode well - this is our LNG fight!
To find out what you can do see the links at the end of the article.
Court strikes down LNG project appeal
By Alexander Rich, Coos Bay, The World Staff Writer Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Oregon Court of Appeals sided with Jordan Cove Energy Project on Wednesday in a ruling that validated Coos County’s zoning policy. It also removed one more legal barrier for the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal.The case stemmed from a Land Use Board of Appeals decision regarding the LNG terminal’s land use application with the county.The appellant, Eugene activist Randy Prince, suggested LUBA failed to consider safety standards recommended by the Department of Land Conservation and Development.The court dismissed the argument, affirming the LUBA decision without issuing an opinion.Prince said he wasn’t surprised by the court’s ruling, and plans to appeal.None of Oregon’s coastal counties have properly evaluated the threat of tsunamis, he said, which he believes was mandated by a revision to a statewide planning goal. A court ruling would force counties from Brookings to Astoria to revise their county land-use policies, Prince said.“We recognize it’s the kind of issue that goes to the Supreme Court,” he said. “The stakes are high.”The Jordan Cove project provided Prince an opportunity to take the issue to Salem. The Appeals Court wasn’t swayed.Jordan Cove proposes to build an LNG terminal on Coos Bay’s North Spit. The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries identifies the land as a tsunami inundation zone, though county floodmaps show no risk of tsunamis. The county hasn’t adopted regulations to specifically address tsunami dangers.“We address it anyway, even if the county doesn’t,” said Jordan Cove Project Manager Bob Braddock.The LNG terminal will be designed with the threat of tsunamis in mind. Jordan Cove would build berms up to 55 feet above sea level around its LNG tanks. No one is sure how a tsunami would behave upon entering Coos Bay, though recent tests suggest water would reach 21 feet at Jordan Cove’s site.Prince said it is his goal to have the case heard before the Oregon Supreme Court.“Jordan Cove is just a shining example of how wrong it is to overlook a well-intentioned law,” he said.The state’s Supreme Court won’t necessarily hear the case, even if Prince pays the $212 to file a petition for review.Appeals Court spokeswoman Lora Keenan said the court has discretion over which cases it hears.Prince alternatively could request the appeals court to re-hear his case.The deadline to file a request for re-hearing is the first week of November. Prince has until the end of next month to petition the Supreme Court.Prince was surprised the court didn’t issue an opinion with its ruling, though Keenan said it is fairly common. In 2007, the Court of Appeals issued rulings in 1,900 cases. Of those, 1,300 were decided without an opinion.Both Prince and Braddock also were surprised at how quickly the court reached its decision. The two sides made oral arguments in the case Oct. 3. Prince thought it might be months.The decision came down much more quickly than the LUBA decision, which the state agency postponed several times before finally issuing its verdict July 15.In its ruling, LUBA dismissed Prince’s argument because the Department of Land Conservation and Development never notified the county of the planning goal revision involving tsunamis.The land-use agency did find several faults with the LNG terminal application regarding wetland mapping and archaeological preservation. Once Prince’s legal question is resolved, the other issues will be remanded to Coos County.
For more information
http://www.nocaliforniapipeline.com/
http://www.lngpollutes.org/
http://www.nolng.net/
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
NOAA Fisheries says FERC violates species act in LNG approval
This bods well for our fight with LNG in Douglas County.
The Oregonian
Friday October 17, 2008, 9:31 PM
The nation's top fisheries agency on Friday told U.S. energy regulators that their Sept. 18 decision to issue conditional approval of the controversial Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal was illegal under the Endangered Species Act.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was out of line in issuing its license without necessary state and federal permits in hand. Before FERC can issue a license, NOAA Fisheries Service says it must be formally consulted on how to minimize the project's impact on endangered species.
The agency stopped short of asking FERC to withdraw or redo its decision, instead asking it to halt any proceedings on the project, proposed for 20 miles east of Astoria on the Columbia River.
"We feel FERC has come to a final decision without the benefit of the critical pieces of information they need to make that decision," said Cathy Tortorici, branch chief for NOAA Fisheries Service in Portland. "We're saying, 'Stop what you're doing until you've consulted with us ... cross out that effective date of Sept. 18th.'"
Bradwood's backer, Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc., characterized the fisheries service filing as a purely procedural matter that would have no impact on its permitting schedule. A NorthernStar spokesman, Joe Desmond, said the filing was a placeholder that preserves the fisheries service's right to appeal FERC's decision later. The company, he said, agrees that more environmental work needs to be completed before the project can go forward.
NOAA Fisheries Service's step, however tenuous, delighted opponents because they believe it will provide better grounds for a possible legal challenge of FERC's process.
"It's a powerful document, despite the fact that it sounds like it was neutered by someone in D.C.," said Brent Foster, executive director of the environmental group Columbia Riverkeepers.
Meanwhile, the state of Washington filed a more forcefully worded request for rehearing, asking FERC to withdraw its approval of the project. The state went beyond process issues and suggested the facility would directly harm fish and the fishing industry.
Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski is expected to pile on Monday, asking FERC to both withdraw the conditional license and redo its environmental analysis. Oregon maintains the approval was unlawful because it was issued before state agencies had approved water-quality, air-quality and coast-zone permits. The state also contends FERC has failed to adequately address conservation plans for fish as well as safety and security threats.
FERC attached more than 100 conditions to its approval that dealt with environmental, engineering and public safety concerns. It concluded, however, that the project would do limited environmental harm.
FERC must respond to the state and federal agency filings within 30 days.
Ted Sickinger; mailto:tedsickinger@news.oregonian.com
The Oregonian
Friday October 17, 2008, 9:31 PM
The nation's top fisheries agency on Friday told U.S. energy regulators that their Sept. 18 decision to issue conditional approval of the controversial Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal was illegal under the Endangered Species Act.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was out of line in issuing its license without necessary state and federal permits in hand. Before FERC can issue a license, NOAA Fisheries Service says it must be formally consulted on how to minimize the project's impact on endangered species.
The agency stopped short of asking FERC to withdraw or redo its decision, instead asking it to halt any proceedings on the project, proposed for 20 miles east of Astoria on the Columbia River.
"We feel FERC has come to a final decision without the benefit of the critical pieces of information they need to make that decision," said Cathy Tortorici, branch chief for NOAA Fisheries Service in Portland. "We're saying, 'Stop what you're doing until you've consulted with us ... cross out that effective date of Sept. 18th.'"
Bradwood's backer, Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc., characterized the fisheries service filing as a purely procedural matter that would have no impact on its permitting schedule. A NorthernStar spokesman, Joe Desmond, said the filing was a placeholder that preserves the fisheries service's right to appeal FERC's decision later. The company, he said, agrees that more environmental work needs to be completed before the project can go forward.
NOAA Fisheries Service's step, however tenuous, delighted opponents because they believe it will provide better grounds for a possible legal challenge of FERC's process.
"It's a powerful document, despite the fact that it sounds like it was neutered by someone in D.C.," said Brent Foster, executive director of the environmental group Columbia Riverkeepers.
Meanwhile, the state of Washington filed a more forcefully worded request for rehearing, asking FERC to withdraw its approval of the project. The state went beyond process issues and suggested the facility would directly harm fish and the fishing industry.
Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski is expected to pile on Monday, asking FERC to both withdraw the conditional license and redo its environmental analysis. Oregon maintains the approval was unlawful because it was issued before state agencies had approved water-quality, air-quality and coast-zone permits. The state also contends FERC has failed to adequately address conservation plans for fish as well as safety and security threats.
FERC attached more than 100 conditions to its approval that dealt with environmental, engineering and public safety concerns. It concluded, however, that the project would do limited environmental harm.
FERC must respond to the state and federal agency filings within 30 days.
Ted Sickinger; mailto:tedsickinger@news.oregonian.com
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Supersize the Cut!
BLM rewrote the rules so they could log more trees on public land!
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management released today an environmental impact statement on its plans to ramp up logging in Western Oregon. The Western Oregon Plan Revisions will supersede the Northwest Forest Plan as the agency’s guiding document for timber management on 2.6 million acres. The revisions stem from a lawsuit filed by the timber industry and timber-dependent counties calling for logging to reach levels promised by the Northwest Forest Plan and the O&C Lands Act of 1937.
How could they cut these trees ancient trees?
Illegally! That's how.
Umpqua Watersheds http://www.umpqua-watersheds.org/ along with other organizations in southern Oregon, took the BLM to court last year to stop the logging of this old growth forest.
BLM lost the legal battle but cut the road through illegally before the court decision. We won the decision, the court sided with us. Hey, wait, put back the trees....
So now they revise their management plans for western Oregon to get around the law. The Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) is the BLM's process of removing and weakening important environmental protections. The BLM wants to log the last of the old-growth in Oregon's heritage forests. "BLM Draft plan released, and its a whopper!
The BLM released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the "Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR)" on August 10, 2007. The preferred alternative would increase logging of trees 200 years and older sevenfold over the next decade. Yes, you read that correctly, a 700 percent increase in logging Oregon's last old-growth forests!"
Quoted from http://www.oregonheritageforests.org/
Wow - supersize the cut.
Some background: the BLM lands, also known as “O&C” lands, are in a square-mile checker-board land ownership patterns. 2.6 milllion acres of public land.
The federal government took these lands back from the Oregon and California (O&C) Railroads in the early 20th century because of fraudulent land deals.
In 1995, the BLM set aside reserves for endangered species like owls and salmon as part of a way around the Endangered Species Act when owls were listed. Somehow the recovery plans mandated by law for endangered species was only held to public lands. Private timber lands got away with murder.
Still the timber industry was not pleased, sued for a bigger cut on public lands (after there was no more big timber on private land ) and Bush "settled" with them by making a deal to let them eliminate wildlife reserves on BLM land, using an old 1937 O & C law of timber production.
I am reading the Draft Environmental Impact Statement so that I can make "comments" on the document and supposedly these public comments are taken into consideration. It is a 1,500 page tome and the planning process must have cost them a fortune already. The law says they have to have alternatives, so what, they are all terrible. Increase old growth logging by 700% - are they nuts. You can't pay for the expenses of the twenty first century with the resource extraction of the 18th century. Hello, does this look like 1937?
Only 18% of the northwest's ancient forests remain. Some sources say as little as 13%. Most of it now on public land, the private land cut theirs a long time ago. This is sustainable? We should cut what, more?
Check out Oregon Heritage Forests
http://www.oregonheritageforests.org/old_growth_giveaway
for more information and ways you can become involved - it's your public land, let them know how you want it managed. Even just caring helps on an energetic level.
Almost all of these awesome photos were taken UW's, Francis Eatherington, Conservation Director seen here counting the rings on this over 300 year old tree.
Will they ever let a tree grow that long again?
It's so short sighted to cut these giants. It's like selling your family jewelry to pay the water bill. What are you going to do next month?
I hope in the future humans will understand that live trees are much more valuable to them than dead ones. You can't even begin to match the power of these forests, with an industrial tree farm. Which do you want to take your grandchildren too?
And that's what I think. Please leave a comment, I'd love to know what you think.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management released today an environmental impact statement on its plans to ramp up logging in Western Oregon. The Western Oregon Plan Revisions will supersede the Northwest Forest Plan as the agency’s guiding document for timber management on 2.6 million acres. The revisions stem from a lawsuit filed by the timber industry and timber-dependent counties calling for logging to reach levels promised by the Northwest Forest Plan and the O&C Lands Act of 1937.
BLM Commonly know as the Bureau of Land Management is now the bureau of land MIS management. Some recent history....
Illegally! That's how.
Umpqua Watersheds http://www.umpqua-watersheds.org/ along with other organizations in southern Oregon, took the BLM to court last year to stop the logging of this old growth forest.
BLM lost the legal battle but cut the road through illegally before the court decision. We won the decision, the court sided with us. Hey, wait, put back the trees....
So now they revise their management plans for western Oregon to get around the law. The Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) is the BLM's process of removing and weakening important environmental protections. The BLM wants to log the last of the old-growth in Oregon's heritage forests. "BLM Draft plan released, and its a whopper!
The BLM released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the "Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR)" on August 10, 2007. The preferred alternative would increase logging of trees 200 years and older sevenfold over the next decade. Yes, you read that correctly, a 700 percent increase in logging Oregon's last old-growth forests!"
Quoted from http://www.oregonheritageforests.org/
Wow - supersize the cut.
Some background: the BLM lands, also known as “O&C” lands, are in a square-mile checker-board land ownership patterns. 2.6 milllion acres of public land.
The federal government took these lands back from the Oregon and California (O&C) Railroads in the early 20th century because of fraudulent land deals.
In 1995, the BLM set aside reserves for endangered species like owls and salmon as part of a way around the Endangered Species Act when owls were listed. Somehow the recovery plans mandated by law for endangered species was only held to public lands. Private timber lands got away with murder.
Still the timber industry was not pleased, sued for a bigger cut on public lands (after there was no more big timber on private land ) and Bush "settled" with them by making a deal to let them eliminate wildlife reserves on BLM land, using an old 1937 O & C law of timber production.
I am reading the Draft Environmental Impact Statement so that I can make "comments" on the document and supposedly these public comments are taken into consideration. It is a 1,500 page tome and the planning process must have cost them a fortune already. The law says they have to have alternatives, so what, they are all terrible. Increase old growth logging by 700% - are they nuts. You can't pay for the expenses of the twenty first century with the resource extraction of the 18th century. Hello, does this look like 1937?
Only 18% of the northwest's ancient forests remain. Some sources say as little as 13%. Most of it now on public land, the private land cut theirs a long time ago. This is sustainable? We should cut what, more?
Check out Oregon Heritage Forests
http://www.oregonheritageforests.org/old_growth_giveaway
for more information and ways you can become involved - it's your public land, let them know how you want it managed. Even just caring helps on an energetic level.
This is not timber, it's a forest of grandfather trees.
Almost all of these awesome photos were taken UW's, Francis Eatherington, Conservation Director seen here counting the rings on this over 300 year old tree.
Will they ever let a tree grow that long again?
It's so short sighted to cut these giants. It's like selling your family jewelry to pay the water bill. What are you going to do next month?
I hope in the future humans will understand that live trees are much more valuable to them than dead ones. You can't even begin to match the power of these forests, with an industrial tree farm. Which do you want to take your grandchildren too?
And that's what I think. Please leave a comment, I'd love to know what you think.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
No Public Disclosure of Old Growth Logging!
The Umpqua National Forest has begun clearing cutting 24 acres of old growth trees in the Lemolo Lake area. The unit is supposedly being cut for a Pacific Orp building.
There was not Environmental Assessment (EA), there was no wildlife surveys nor was there any public disclosure.
It took the agency over a month of regular prodding by Umpqua Watersheds Conservation Director to even answer questions as to what and why they were logging.
Contact - Cheryl Caplan, Public Affairs Officer, Umpqua National Forest
Office -- 541/957-3270; cell -- 541/430-5124, fax -- 541/957-3495
ccaplan@fs.fed.us
Centennial Website -- http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua/100
Tell her how disgusted and disappointed you are, as once the trees are down, they can not be put back. Make them think twice in the future about cutting old growth trees.
Thanks Francis for the information and photos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)