by Ann Vileisis
Wild Rivers Headwaters Update and Opportunity to Help!
As longtime KAS members know, we continue to support permanent protection of the headwaters of Hunter Creek, Pistol River, the North Fork of the Smith, and the Illinois Rivers from the threat of strip mining. All these areas were temporarily withdrawn from new mining claims for 20 years with the 2017 Southwest Oregon “mineral withdrawal,” which gives Congress time to act on legislation. Last year, Senator Wyden combined the bill that would make this protection permanent with another bill to protect more wilderness on the Rogue River (between Galice and Marial, upstream in Josephine County) in new legislation called the Oregon Recreation Enhancement (ORE) Act. I am very glad to report that in December, Senator Wyden advanced the ORE Act through a markup in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This is a critically important step toward making the protections we need permanent.
While it may seem that the push for mining has faded into the background with the 20-year mineral withdrawal in place, Red Flat Nickel Company (RFNC) continues to assert that it has valid existing claims in the headwaters of Hunter Creek that would be exempt from the mineral withdrawal. The Forest Service has yet to make a determination about the validity of the company’s claims. Moreover, on the national level, the mining industry continues to push Congress to roll back already lax regulations that govern hard rock mining, so we need to stay vigilant.
Meanwhile, Senator Merkley has introduced entirely different legislation to expand the Smith River National Recreation Area into Oregon, which would make permanent the mineral withdrawal for the watershed of the North Fork of the Smith River, located at the southern tip of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness.
We need to thank our senators for continuing to work to permanently protect the headwaters of our extra-ordinary wild rivers — so that they know we are still paying attention and that we still care. Senators Wyden and Merkley are cosponsors of both bills.
Please call with a simple message of thanks. Here is a sample script:
Thank you for your leadership in protecting South-west Oregon’s wild rivers from the threat of strip mining.
Senator Wyden, thank you for your work to advance the ORE Act, with the Southwest Oregon Mineral Withdrawal, through committee markup, and I hope you’ll keep working to get it passed.
Senator Merkley, thank you for introducing the bill to protect the North Fork Smith, and I hope you will also continue to support efforts to advance mineral withdrawals for our other cherished wild rivers through the ORE Act.
Senator Wyden: (202) 224-5244 / (541) 858-5122
Senator Merkley: (202) 224-3753 / (541) 608-9102
You can also send a brief thank you note through the senators’ websites.
Floras Lake Exchange, Brief Update
Last fall, both the Curry County Board of Commissioners (BOC) and the Oregon Parks and Recreation Commission (OPRC) voted to move forward with an exchange of 90 acres of inaccessible, county-owned land on Floras Lake (adjacent to Floras Lake Natural Area) and 33 acres of accessible, state-owned land on Highway 101 at the corner of Airport Road. Since we’ve been working toward a conservation outcome for the Floras Lake lands for nearly a decade, we are looking forward to celebrating! However, though the BOC signed an agreement on December 5, the ex-change is not yet complete. The agreement stipulates a closing date of December 31, 2020 — almost a year from now — and before then, the county needs to “vacate” all of the roads in the parcel to be ex-changed. The agreement stipulates that costs of this legal task will be split, with the state paying no more than $3,000 to get the job done. According to county staff, this final work has not yet been budgeted or scheduled and may require additional direction from the BOC. Given the difficulties and politics of getting the agreement signed, we intend to watchdog this until the job is truly complete.
Pistol River Gravel Extraction Project Update
In last quarter’s Storm Petrel, we reported that the Curry County Planning Commission (PC) had denied a proposal for gravel extraction along the lower Pistol River because the application lacked information required by law to inform a proper decision. We also reported that the project proponent had declined to appeal the decision. That was the best information available from the county when we went to press, but, shortly thereafter, he did, in fact, decide to appeal the decision to the Curry County Board of Commissioners.
Meanwhile, neighbors in Pistol River held two local gatherings — one convened by the project proponent and another by the project opponents. KAS was invited to participate in the second meeting, where the project proponent spoke about his desire to, in fact, restore the lower river. We were heartened to hear that and also to learn that the Curry Watersheds Partnership (which includes the South Coast Watershed Council and the Curry Soil and Watershed Conservation District) had already started to work with other willing landowners in the lower river to consider potential restoration projects. They had even submitted a grant proposal to fund hydrologic and sediment studies needed to determine how best to proceed and where gravel removal might be warranted for restoration purposes.
However, despite the hopeful rhetoric, when the BOC considered the appeal at a de novo hearing in mid-November, the proposal remained focused on taking out gravel and still lacked basic information about the amount of gravel to be removed and impacts to the estuary and to salmon. We urged the commissioners to encourage the project proponent to withdraw his appeal and work together with the watershed council to develop a restoration-oriented plan. The record was kept open for several weeks for additional information and rebuttals. Then on January 8, the BOC made a final decision, voting two to one to affirm the PC’s decision to deny the still-deficient proposal. Commissioner Boice voted against, wanting to keep the record open to allow the applicant still more time.
It is critical to carefully scrutinize projects proposed in and around the estuarine zones of our coastal rivers because these areas are especially important for fish that use them for migration, juvenile rearing, and even nursery habitat in the case of some marine species. Even if there is good habitat upstream, degraded estuary habitat can serve as a bottleneck for salmon runs. For this reason, anyone proposing a project in aquatic estuarine habitat must secure permits not on-ly from local government but also from state and federal agencies to assure that impacts to water quality and fish, especially threatened coho salmon, will be minimized.
At this point, the project proponent may decide to appeal the BOC decision to the state Land Use Board of Appeals. Otherwise, he will need to wait for a year to submit a new application to the county. We hope that he will work with a restoration consultant and Curry Watersheds Partnership to develop a proposal that could help to restore the lower Pistol River.
Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pipeline Update
In mid-November, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Pembina Corporation’s Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) pipeline and terminal facility. The facility is proposed by a Canadian corporation to export American gas to Asia, condemning Oregonians’ land along the pipe-line route and building a dangerous facility squarely in a high-hazard earthquake and tsunami zone. Ac-cording to the FEIS, constructing and operating the LNG project would impact soil, water, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, 15 threatened and endangered species, land use, recreation, landscape views, traffic, cultural resources, housing, air quality, and noise levels. In particular, the pipeline would cross more than 300 waterbodies, including the Rogue, Klamath, and Coos Rivers, and would require clearing of more than 2,000 acres of forest, including 750 acres of old-growth.
In mid-January, the National Marine Fisheries Ser-vice (NMFS) released a “biological opinion” (BiOp) that the project’s impacts would not jeopardize the long-term survival of any federally threatened or endangered species. The FEIS and BiOp are intended to inform FERCs final decision, which is expected next month.
Meanwhile, on the local front, the Coos Bay City Council on January 7 considered a proposal for dredging Coos Bay in order to accommodate massive ships that would service the proposed LNG facility at Jordan Cove. Analyzing the project as a contractor for the city, planning staff from the Lane Council of Governments determined the project was not in the “public interest” and recommended disapproval. Nevertheless, the city council’s vote was a tie, with three against and three in favor. Ultimately, the mayor broke the tie, tipping the balance for city approval of this part of the LNG plan.
A contingent of about nine KAS members attended the city council meeting to show opposition to this project that would degrade Coos Bay and commit us to another 30 years of burning fossil fuels. At a pre-meeting rally, retired Oregon Institute of Marine Biology scientist Alan Shanks explained to the crowd how the proposed dredging would bust into bedrock, permanently changing the flow of seawater in the bay in unknown ways. This could be disastrous for juvenile crabs that rely on the sheltered habitat for nursery grounds, an issue that has not been sufficiently analyzed, in his view. It is likely that the city council’s decision will be appealed. Keep in mind, too, that earlier this year, the state Department of Environmental Quality denied a critical clean water permit. As we go to press, there is big news that Pembina has withdrawn its application for a key state “dredge and fill” permit. Stay tuned for further news about this consequential project.
Port Orford “Dark Sky” Ordinance Ready for an Upgrade
Over the past several months, the Port Orford Planning Commission (PC) has been considering up-grades to Port Orford’s Dark Sky lighting ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to keep light focused downward to the ground where it’s needed, preventing light pollution that would obscure the town’s beautiful starry night sky and light trespass that errantly falls onto neighbors’ properties.
The ordinance was first adopted in 2010 after many years of effort from KAS members, especially Al Geiser, who worked together with Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative, helping to install “night caps” on dozens of lights around town. An upgrade is now needed to address new LED technology, with new terms and units to describe light, such as Kelvins and lumens. Problems with enforceability also need to be addressed. The PC has drawn upon outdoor-lighting ordinances from a number of other small cities to develop language for this upgrade.
The ordinance was scheduled for consideration by the PC in mid-January but was bumped by a proposal to increase the height of the cell phone tower on Boot Hill Road. Thanks to all who turned out anyway to speak in favor of the lighting ordinance. At this point, the ordinance is expected to be considered at the PC meeting on February 11 at 3:30 p.m., but it’s important to check the agenda ahead of time, given that the schedule may change. After the ordinance is approved by the PC, it will be considered by the Port Orford City Council. We’ll need help from supporters at the city council meeting to ensure that the new ordinance will pass.
Some may take our beautiful night sky for granted in Curry County, but it’s important to note that fewer and fewer places in the world remain unaffected by light pollution. Beyond annoying neighbors and creating pink glare in the night sky, too much light at night has impacts on birds; seabirds such as storm petrels can be drawn to night lights like moths to a candle and become disoriented, with dire effect. Bright lights at night are also known to affect human health. For these reasons, many communities cherish their dark skies as a benefit to residents and visitors alike.
Forest Reforms Coming to the Ballot Box
For years, Oregonians concerned about insufficient riparian buffers for logging and aerial spraying of herbicides have tried to reform Oregon’s Forest Practices Act, the law that regulates forestry on private lands, but to little avail given the power of the timber industry. It’s well known that Oregon’s forestry rules are weaker than those in all surrounding states, including Idaho, so this past fall forest activists tried a new tack using the citizen ballot initiative process, aiming to put forest practice reforms directly to voters — in particular, expanded buffers for aerial spraying and logging around waterbodies. However, the secretary of state deemed the initiatives were too complex for the initiative process (and has been accused of siding with industry), and she threw them out. That decision was appealed in December. Mean-while, activists are aiming to place alternative provisions on the ballot for the 2020 election to accomplish similar goals.
Those of you who live in small watersheds know firsthand the risks of aerial spraying of herbicides and also how lack of buffer zones beside streams can lead to sedimentation that fills up pools and other-wise degrades aquatic habitat. The ballot initiatives will be a good opportunity to make headway on forest practice reforms that are critically important for public health, wildlife, and ecosystems. Below is info on an upcoming event about this — and we’ll keep you posted on more opportunities to support this effort.
Feb. 17, Monday, 6:30-8pm, Improving Protections for Forest Waters Workshop, Port Orford Public Library
Join us at this workshop to help citizens learn about shortcomings in Oregon’s current state forestry rules and upcoming ballot measures intended to improve them—by increasing buffers for logging and aerial spraying along streams. Come find out how you can help press for rules to better protect our streams and communities!