noLNG

Preserve, Protect, Restore, Enhance...........

Would you help "Preserve, Protect, Develop, and where possible, to Restore or Enhance, the the resources of the Nation's Coastal Zone for this and succeeding generations", well that be the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) passed by Congress in 1972.

To protect the Columbia River, we need your help, please make your tax deductable contribution by clicking on this link  https://columbiariverkeeper.ejoinme.org/MyPages/Donate/tabid/5203/Default.aspx  Thank you.

The FERC better take notice!

5/22/2008 12:17:00 PM

ALEX PAJUNAS — The Daily Astorian An old boat sits atop a sea of mud and debris in Woodson Tuesday, the result of a massive mudslide along Ellertsen Creek on Dec. 11, 2007. ALEX PAJUNAS — The Daily Astorian Arne Skaugset, an associate professor with the Forest Engineering Department at Oregon State University, gives a speech on forestry and landslides Wednesday during the Columbia Forum in Astoria. Slip and slide: No safe harbor Forest engineering expert talks about landslides at the Columbia Forum By CASSANDRA PROFITA The Daily Astorian Forest engineering expert Arne Skaugset says Oregon's Coast Range has two kinds of landscapes: "Them that's slid and them that's gonna slide." And although scientists know logging increases the risk of landslides, Skaugset laments they cannot predict when and where the slides are going to occur. At the Columbia Forum Wednesday night in Astoria, Skaugset, an associate professor at Oregon State University, laid out the research that ties forest management with the frequency of landslides in the region. His talk began with a simple slogan: Silt happens. Full story:  http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=398&ArticleID=51557

Why we Fight!

Would anyone see our river changed from the above picture to the one below. (click on the picture)

Beautiful Freeport, TX.

Can anyone ever imagine to call these industrial ditches, a TOURIST ATTRACTION. Well our past EDC director ( June 28, 2007) did, so did other folks being recipients of "Gifts" (July 9, 2007).

Do we like our salmon estuary to look like THIS?

Wait till you see the whole picture, one would call it "UGLY".

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS

Wednesday, April 09, 2008
The Oregonian
There are some things Americans, and Oregonians in particular, should consider as they weigh the possibility of liquefied natural gas as a "bridge" energy source. The industry is quick to paint a rosy picture of LNG as a "green" and "available" source of energy. But there are many things they're not telling you.

Palomar, a joint venture between Northwest Natural Gas Co. and TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., is quick to point out the proposed Oregon projects' benefit to the local economy, but it never speaks of the costs to our communities and our nation. As reported in The Oregonian, proponents estimate the Palomar pipeline project would pump $75 million into local economies each year and provide $8 million in annual taxes. What they don't say is that the $75 million would come from regional ratepayers and, on top of that, another $1.6 billion to $2.2 billion, at current prices, would be extracted from the same ratepayers and piped out of our nation annually into foreign banks to pay for the LNG. The $75 million "profit" would be split between a small number of workers and the stockholders of the corporations that are pushing these proposals. The Palomar pipeline would cross hundreds of miles of our state, degrading hundreds of streams and many tracts of farmland, before slashing its way through the Mount Hood National Forest.

Proponents say LNG is a green source of energy. It's not. By the time it's extracted on a foreign continent, liquefied, shipped to our shore, re-gasified and pumped hundreds or thousands of miles to its end user, it has a huge carbon cost. Whatever reduction of carbon emissions is gained because of its cleaner burning is more than offset by the long journey it must take to get here.

Under the guise of national security, the federal government would condone the condemnation of private property for the benefit of corporate profit. It would also take and trash public assets and property for that same corporate profit. Farmland that has been family-owned for generations would be split and restrictions placed on its use. The litany of ill-effects could go on, but the winners and losers of the proposed LNG projects are already apparent. The industry stands to make a lot of money, while the planet, the country, our state and future and current generations of people, fish and wildlife will all pay a heavy price.

For the complete opinion go to: www.oregonLive.com

Beware Texans bearing gifts

Today's Daily Astorian has an editorial worth a read. Titled Beware Texans Bearing Gifts with a subhead of "LNG developers are here to make a pile, not to make our region more livable," the piece makes some nice points about the long-term impact of allowing this sort of heavy industry on our river.

A few quotes:

     At the heart of the LNG discussion is this simple truth: An LNG terminal at Bradwood will dramatically alter the culture of the Lower Columbia River, and in a way that many of us will not like 20 years from now.    

...NorthernStar and the others are here to make the kind of killing that big developers dream of. They are not here to be our longstanding friends or to make this a more livable place.    

Developments like this are for all practical purposes irreversible in a meaningful human time frame. Particularly at a time when this region is being considered for designation as the West Coast's first National Heritage Area, we should approach all major decisions with seriousness and profound awareness of our obligations to future generations.

Read Beware Texans Bearing Gifts.

Remember the Planning Commission meets in Astoria this Wednesday to make a preliminary recommendation. The meeting starts at 10 a.m., in the Judge Guy Boyington Building, 857 Commercial St. in downtown Astoria

Astoria: Mothers march against LNG - May 20

Mothers March against LNG

Daughters, Grandmothers and Families too!

A Family friendly event!

Hear the mothers of Oregon and Washington talk about what the LNG re-gasification plant, tankers, and pipelines mean to our families and communities.

Save the date: Sunday, May 20th 1:00 pm 
Gather at the Blue Scorcher Café at 15th & Exchange Astoria.   

Plan to bring your entire family or a carload of friends & neighbors.

Stay tuned for more details.

Download a PDF of the flyer for the Mothers March against LNG

Coast Guard releases WSR

The Coast Guard has completed their review of the Waterway Suitability Assessment for the Bradwood Landing Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal project submitted by Northern Star Natural Gas, LLC. We have heard that many people are having difficulties in attempting to download the file, so we have made it available for download here: Download Bradwood_WSR.pdf

Here are a couple of articles from local newspapers on the subject:

• Longview Daily News article: Coast Guard releases study on LNG
• Daily Astorian: Coast Guard: River not ready for LNG

 

 

Northern Star buys a piece of Svensen Island

Northern Star has taken out all sorts of pretty ads to trumpet an agreement to purchase the western portion of Svensen Island for use in salmon mitigation. They also have options to buy 80 percent (which must be the rest) of the island. The salmon mitigation plan calls for removing dikes to flood the island, creating "shallow marshes where migrating salmon could rest away from the Columbia's main channel." Will this work? (and do salmon rest areas have free coffee and cookies like the ones on the highway?) Seriously, do salmon rest in marshes? Where's a wildlife biologist when you need one?

Northern Star is promising $7 million between the start of terminal construction and 2010, when the proposed plant would open. After that, they promise $1.3 million a year as long as the facility operates. But what happens if they have negative impact on the salmon during construction (or operation) and then abandon the project for economic or other reason? (Not that I think the Columbia River would end up with an idle energy project waiting to be demolished. Random fact: there's 4,700 tons of nuclear waste sitting at Trojan, at least The Daily News says there is. Did you know that? I sure didn't. But I digress...back to the current proposed energy plant.)

One problem with this plan is that Columbia Land Trust had already raised funds to buy the island and was talking with the owners about a conservation purchase when Northern Star stepped in. While the two offers may appear similar on the surface, they aren't necessarily the same thing. After all, one of these groups is in the conservation business and one is not.

I do have to give it to Northern Star, they got some good soundbites out there:

They say they undertook a "rebooting of the project to make sure it was in tune with regional values" Now rebooting sounds good and all that: technical, modern...and meaningless. One has to wonder how much rebooting can be done in the ten days between when they announced their plans would damage the salmon and now. I'm also not sure what they mean about regional values, although they are calling the salmon "ours" in those full page ads. 

They say they have "virtually eliminated" the threat to fish from engine cooling and ballast water intake and discharge. (so why the list? what about the threats that aren't related to engine cooling and ballast? or are we supposed to believe that other than that, salmon are safe?)

They say they have found "a very elegant solution" to the problem of killing salmon during engine cooling and ballast uptake: screens. Water will come in through these "special" (meaning small, I guess) screens and be used to cool the engine, then used for ballast. This will help with the issue of discharging heated water into the river. It still means they are taking huge amounts of water for ballast and the rest of their proposed operation isn't exactly good for salmon. But I suppose the salmon have their rest area.

btw, this elegant solution: brand new. Untested. (sounds like it's still on the drawing board) Not in use in the industry. No ships have it. But Northern Star promises they'll pay for installation on ships.  (No surprise there, they are promising money to lots of folks these days.)

There are three articles listed here, each of them with a slightly different take on the island deal. It's interesting to read all of them and see how the approach varies at different sources. The article at the Astorian has the most detail.

Island purchase shines for Northern Star   (Daily Astorian)

Proposed gas terminal vows salmon protections   (The Columbian)

Company offers $50 million to help salmon in exchange for terminal   (Coos Bay World)

Since you read this far, tell us what you think. This site is more interesting and useful when everyone plays along.

The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership has a plan for the endangered fish recovery

Another interesting read from The Daily Astorian
Estuary plan includes $500 million for salmon, steelhead recovery Lower Columbia Partnership analysis is open for review
By CASSANDRA PROFITA

Degraded Columbia River estuary habitat is contributing to the decline of endangered species of salmon and steelhead trout, but it is hard to tell how much because so little is known about the complex ecosystem.

Nevertheless the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership (LCREP) has designed a plan for the recovery of the endangered fish.

The proposal that LCREP created is available at NOAA (the sponsoring agency) for public review and comment. You can download the 200 page report here. (It is a 7 MB PDF file so you might want to right-click on that link and save it to read with your next cup of coffee rather than opening it in your browser.) The piece goes on.

"There is general agreement that the estuary ecosystem is degraded and no longer provides the same level of support to native species assemblages that it did historically," the module's executive summary says. "Unfortunately, this field of research is perhaps the least understood, and its impact on salmon and steelhead is not well documented or studied."

The report notes the size of the estuary is about 20 percent smaller than it was when Lewis and Clark camped along the shore. "This reduction in estuary size is due mostly to dike and filling practices used to convert the flood plain to agricultural, industrial, commercial and residential uses," it says.

There has been a 44 percent decrease in spring freshets or floods in the last 200 years, and the flows in the estuary "do not resemble" their historic patterns, according to the report. Hydropower, water withdrawal for irrigation and water supplies and climate fluctuations have all taken their toll on the health of the system, which, in turn, has affected salmon and trout.

Water quality has been degraded by human practices within the estuary and upstream, the document says. Increased water temperatures, by an average of 4 degrees since 1938, and the presence of toxic contaminants are key threats to salmon and steelhead. A study in the estuary linked contaminants to fatal diseases in up to 18 percent of salmon tested.

The report has a number of suggestions for projects to address the little understood problem, including:

"monitoring the estuary for contaminants and restoring contaminated sites...changing main- and side-channel dredging to reduce negative impacts and removing tide gates and jetties and navigational structures that have 'low navigational value but high impact on estuary circulation or juvenile predation effects.' "

Gee, weren't we just talking about dredging?

LCREP Executive Director Debrah Marriott says that she is looking forward to hearing from people. Through the wonders of technology, we can help with that: Send LCREP' email at lcrep@lcrep.org or get the rest of their contact information here.

This report is one of a series of recovery planning “modules” that NOAA's Northwest Region is developing. It looks like those reports will be available here when they are released.

Interesting sidenote: A reader of ours wrote to point out that the increased water useage by industry, water intake for ballast and so on has a serious impact on this problem. Looking at just two proposed facilities -- Bradwood and NorthWest Energy  at Kalama -- the combined water usage will be 6.6 Billion Gallons a Year. And that's just two of the many project proposals that seem to be popping up all over the beautiful Lower Columbia River, where speculators seem bound and determined to turn our river into another ugly, polluted, heavy industrial zone.