Tag: mining

Posted on

Conservation News, Spring 2021

by Ann Vileisis

Representative DeFazio Leads on SOWSPA!

I am pleased to report that, since the last Storm Petrel, the bill to protect the headwaters of Hunter Creek, Pistol River, the Illinois (Rough and Ready Creek), and North Fork Smith from the threats of strip mining — the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act (SOWSPA) — has passed the whole U.S. House of Representatives as part of a larger public lands bill (the Protecting America’s Wilderness and Public Lands Act), thanks to a big
push by our Representative Peter DeFazio! If you’ve not yet thanked Congressman DeFazio, please send a quick note via the contact page on his website to express appreciation (and help to keep him engaged!): https://defazio.house.gov/contact/contact-peter.

Now it’s time to ask our senators to do their part! They have already introduced a different bill, the River Democracy Act, which — based on nominations from hundreds of Oregonians — would designate thousands of miles of new wild and scenic rivers throughout our state, giving clear guidance to federal land managing agencies to accord our wild rivers with a higher level of protection. But most important, we need our senators’ help to finish the business of passing SOWSPA, which remains crucial to protecting threatened headwaters from mining. As longtime KAS members know, SOWSPA builds on years of communities coming together — on both sides of the Oregon and California border — to advocate for protecting outstanding wild rivers, drinking water, salmon and steelhead runs, recreation opportunities, and other natural values. The initial impetus was a proposal for mineral exploration in the headwaters of Hunter Creek/Pistol River by a company that also held a large block of mining claims in the headwaters of the North Fork Smith River. The laterite soils (what we often call “serpentine”) are rich in minerals but are of low grade — so mining would require removal of massive amounts of overburden. Such strip mining, plus piling and leach-processing of rock, in our high-precipitation area would be like opening a Pandora’s box at the headwaters of our special wild rivers. Working for increased protections for our public lands is a long process that demands perseverance, but I know that all our local voices together — YOUR VOICES — have been absolutely critical in getting us this far. Please let’s press ahead together. I thank you for your help in keeping this ball rolling along!

ACTION NEEDED: Please send an email to Senators Wyden and Merkley thanking them for introducing the River Democracy Act and encouraging them to introduce and advance SOWSPA in the Senate. Here is the contact page for Senator Wyden:
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/contact/email-ron

Here is the contact page for Senator Merkley:
https://www.merkley.senate.gov/contact

Here is a sample message to help you with writing
your own note:

Dear Senator Wyden/ Senator Merkley,
Thank you for introducing the River Democracy Act.
I appreciate your listening to Oregonians and giving
federal agencies clear guidance to better protect the
rivers that flow through our federal public lands.
However, in southwest Oregon, we have some rivers
that need additional protection from the threat of
strip mining at their headwaters. To address this
issue, I urge you to please re-introduce the Southwest
Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act
(SOWSPA). The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed this bill, and so your leadership is now needed on the Senate side to get this important act
passed into law. Please re-introduce SOWSPA soon!

Floating Offshore Wind Power: Coming SOON to a Coast Near Us

In late March, KAS along with the Oregon Audubon Coalition (OAC) hosted a webinar with planners from the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Manage-ment (BOEM) and the State of Oregon about current planning for future installation of floating wind tur-bines in federal waters off our coast. In short, BOEM is now preparing to identify potential leasing areas, called “call areas,” for wind energy development companies, and the agency wanted to “engage” with us to tell us what they are doing to address concern about impacts to birds.

Of course, we’re very interested to know. Our “beat”— Oregon’s South Coast — is seabird central! Oregon hosts one-half of the West Coast’s breeding bird colonies, and our part of the coast hosts more than one-half of Oregon’s colonies. We have millions of seabirds that come to breed here precisely owing to the wind, which churns the surface and causes upwelling of deep, cold water and nutrients that nourish the invertebrates and fish they forage on; it’s one of the richest and cleanest marine ecosystems on the West Coast. Moreover, these rich waters also attract nearly 100 species of pelagic birds from all across the Pacific, including albatrosses, shearwaters, fulmars, and more. I’ve never yet been out on a pelagic birding trip, but friends who have say that 25 miles out is where one starts to see many of these unique species. Of course, fish and wildlife, including whales and other marine mammals, depend on rich offshore waters, too. So what is BOEM doing? It is currently assembling and starting to analyze known data with the aim of identifying areas where presumably impacts to birds, fish, and wildlife can be minimized. I am grateful that BOEM is making this effort, but I have no delusions. This is the same agency that oversees offshore oil and gas leasing, and its process aims to expedite installation of industrial-scale energy production facilities by big energy companies. Though it sounds at first like BOEM’s planning will inform the site selection, actually the companies decide where they want to site facilities first, and then a public process follows from there. It is expected that BOEM will invite companies to propose sites for projects later this year (likely in November). Then there will be two opportunities for public input — the first in response to general siting of “call areas” and another with the NEPA-required public process — after areas have been leased and companies have put forth their specific plans, which is, of course, quite late in the game for making meaningful adjustments.

Meanwhile, with the Biden Administration’s big push to address climate change with green energy projects, there is now a rush to bring these facilities to Oregon to take advantage of substantial, time-limited federal subsidies. On the state level, in early April, the Oregon House Committee on Energy heard a bill put forth by our Representative David Brock Smith to expedite installation of three gigawatts of power — roughly 250 to 300 massive turbines — off our coast by 2025 or 2030. The initial bill called for a task force to expedite development and included no mention of birds, fish, wildlife, or ecosystems, but it was substantially amended to instead direct the Oregon Department of Energy to collect information about the benefits and challenges of connecting the offshore energy facilities with Oregon’s electric grid. The amended version includes a statement about minimizing impacts to ocean ecosystems and also, very fortunately, includes clear language about the need to plan for decommissioning of such facilities. This improved bill has bipartisan support, is expected to pass, and aims to give different economic stakeholders and the State of Oregon greater leverage in deciding where and how wind energy facilities might be sited — though to be clear, the primary permitting process will be federal.

In the past, land-based wind power on our coast had been deemed economically infeasible because the big BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) transmission lines stop at the California border and so could not carry electrons south to lucrative, larger markets seeking renewable energy. Now, however, a new model is being put forth — to tap Oregon’s offshore wind to supply power to coastal communities and then use our state’s existing grid infrastructure to also convey electricity into the Willamette Valley, freeing up other energy for energy-demanding metropolitan areas to the north and south. It is widely thought from a national perspective that wind power will help to reduce our dependence on polluting fossil-fuel energy sources, namely oil and gas, with an overall benefit of ultimately reducing impacts of climate change.

National Audubon has a policy of supporting wind energy development that minimizes impacts on birds — recognizing that the environmental stressors associated with climate change are already affecting birds, fish, and wildlife. The harsh reality is that we now live in a time of increasingly heartbreaking tradeoffs based on the tragic failure of past energy policy decisions.

One thing I have learned about reducing impacts of wind turbine arrays is that siting is supremely im-portant; wind generators are a good idea but are not suitable everywhere. With concern about potential impacts of industrial wind installations on birds, fish, and wildlife in the rich waters off Oregon’s coast, KAS and the OAC intend to engage to ensure that the expedited federal permitting process will not sidestep these concerns.

Honestly, when I listened to the state hearing online, heard our coast described as the “Saudi Arabia of Wind,” and saw that the initial bill to expedite energy development included not a single word about birds, it was hard not to worry about the gold-rush mentality of wind developers. It made me realize we’ll surely need to stand up for the albatrosses, petrels, and puffins, and hopefully be a force to make sure these potentially massive industrial facilities get sited in the least damaging locations and operated in the least damaging manner possible. Please stay tuned on this important emerging issue.

Administration Revokes Bad MBTA Opinion

In early March, the Biden Administration revoked the controversial opinion made by the former administration’s Department of the Interior Solicitor, the so-called “M-Opinion,” which in 2017 had weakened the Migratory Bird Treaty Act — one of America’s bedrocks for bird conservation. Reversing decades of legal interpretation, the “M-Opinion” declared that the Act did not prohibit incidental — albeit the predictable and preventable — killing of migratory birds by commercial activities. In addition, the Biden Administration started a public process that hopefully will also revoke the pending regulation intended to further codify the unfavorable-to-birds “M-Opinion.”

With ever increasing development along their migra-tory flight paths, our birds face increasing threats — from potential for collisions with tall buildings, wind turbines, and communications towers, to finding former wetland resting and feeding habitats reduced to crowded, disease-ridden, or polluted-by-industry sinks. Several industries, including wind energy, have made great effort to develop best practices and miti-gation measures to reduce incidental bird mortality, owing precisely to the “stick” of the MTBA. This bedrock law remains critically important as a tool for bird conservation into the future.

Protect Forests to Address Climate Crisis

President Biden’s first big action on the environment was to re-enter the Paris climate agreement, and his administration has hit the ground running with efforts to accelerate a transition to renewable energy. How-ever, there is another important approach that many in the conservation community would like to see advanced, too: protecting our forests.

Safeguarding current carbon stored in forests and in-creasing those stores is recognized by the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an essential strategy for addressing the climate crisis. U.S. forests already sequester nearly 12 percent of our nation’s annual carbon emissions, but they could do more if public lands forests were strategically managed to retain carbon.

Mature trees in old-growth forests play an outsized role in storing and sequestering carbon because they serve as a centuries-old bank. Intact, primary, or un-logged forests store 30 percent to 70 percent more carbon than logged forests. It will take quite a long time for newly planted trees to catch up — 100 or 200 years, of course. In addition, protecting mature forests would have the multiple benefits of also pro-tecting clean water and biodiversity.

For all these reasons, Kalmiopsis Audubon joined with more than 100 conservation and environmental groups in sending a letter to Biden Administration climate policy leaders, urging them to include protection of mature and old-growth forests as a key strategy to assure compliance with the Paris climate treaty. At a global climate summit on Earth Day, Biden announced an ambitious new goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030 — signaling greater urgency and commitment to addressing the climate crisis. There is a lot of focus on new technologies, but let’s not forget the value of our trees and forests as tried-and-true carbon sequesterers.

KAS Supports ODFW Efforts to Protect Habitat

Earlier this year, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) submitted applications for “in-stream water rights” to ensure future flows for fish in more than 100 streams around the state, including in our area the Sixes, Chetco, and Winchuck. The flows of all our local rivers are pretty much already “fully-appropriated” for the low-flow summer months, which means that water users already have the rights to take all the water that is available down to a fairly minimal flow level, not always leaving enough as would be optimal for fish and aquatic life. Like most states in the West, Oregon’s water allocation system is based on the antiquated doctrine of first in time, first in right — established long before anyone could envision a scenario of scar-city and certainly before anyone remembered to leave some water in the river for fish.

Fortunately, many of our rivers already have some minimal in-stream water rights for fish, and in some cases, farmers or ranchers have worked with ODFW to allow their water rights to flow in-stream for the purpose of conservation — so the new ODFW applications were submitted as a kind of insurance policy, giving fish priority should any flows become available in the future. Nevertheless, Curry County’s commissioners decided to oppose the in-stream flow proposals, suggesting that they would preclude “future development” that would be more important. I honestly can’t imagine many local residents prefer-ring more development to rivers with insufficient water in the summer or fish in the fall. On behalf of KAS, I submitted a letter to the commissioners and also to the State Water Resources Department to back up ODFW’s applications for local in-stream flows, and I appreciate other KAS members from the specific watersheds who helped by sending addition-al letters. We also sent a letter to support ODFW in updating the state’s Essential Fish Habitat maps. These official maps determine where the many laws intended to protect salmon habitat actually apply — and affect activities such as mining and logging.

Port Orford Dark Sky Ordinance

Keeping Port Orford’s skies dark — for natural beauty, birds and wildlife, human health, and energy conservation — has been an issue championed by KAS for more than two decades with notable success, but evolving LED lighting technology has made an up-grade of the Port Orford outdoor lighting ordinance necessary. The public process has taken longer than expected, but we’re now getting close. At its March meeting, the City Council sent the latest version back to the Planning Commission (PC) with a request for some specific fixes related to enforcement provisions, street lights, and security lights. At its April meeting, the PC stated its intent to make the fixes in May and then to hold another public hearing in June. The ordinance will then head back to the City Council, hopefully for final approval. Please sign up for the KAS HOOT OUT to learn more about how you can help at the critical junctures. It will be important to show public support!

Interactive Map of Clearcuts and Sprays Across Oregon

If you haven’t done so yet, I’d recommend checking out the map created by Coast Range Forest Watch that compiles all the clearcuts and sprays planned so far in 2021. A zoomed-out view shows just how much forestry activity is planned in the Coast Range, and zooming in will allow you to see if activities may be planned in a specific area you care about. It also al-lows you to see which clearcuts and sprays are taking place within municipal drinking watersheds. You can view the map online at www.sprayfreecoast.org/sprays-across-oregon/ which also provides information about more of the map’s functions and how to use it.

If you’re interested in helping to monitor forestry activity in a watershed near you, please contact teresa @kalmiopsisaudubon.org. – Teresa Bird

Posted on

Conservation News – Winter 2020

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!