Tuesday, July 10, 2007

My testimony for the Planning Commission




Before the Clatsop County Planning Commission, July 10, 2001
Regarding application for development at Bradwood


Thank you for the opportunity to offer some of my thoughts on this application. Overall, I believe that development of an LNG terminal in the Columbia River estuary would have wide-ranging negative effects on our economy, our safety and security, and our quality of life. Locating a receiving terminal at Bradwood would be breathtakingly inappropriate.

Thankfully, Clatsop County and the State of Oregon had the foresight to thoughtfully consider the natural functions and sustainable uses of this magnificent and delicate estuary, and to zone the waters and adjacent lands in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. Your staff report draws the only reasonable conclusion – deny the application.

Although the staff report recommendation is clear and well-reasoned, the material before you suffers from two glaring omissions. First, you have not been provided full and complete details of all public safety issues associated with the transport of LNG through Clatsop County to Bradwood. There is no way to operate the terminal without transport of LNG, including tanker transit from entry into United States waters, to crossing the Columbia River bar, to navigation close to our shores, towns and cities. The planning commission and Clatsop County should not abdicate evaluation of local health and safety issues to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. We’re the ones who would live with the consequences.

Similarly, this commission should have been provided with a thorough independent evaluation of the cost of LNG import to the County. To responsibly consider an application for the heaviest industrial development that this estuary has ever seen, it is vital to understand the direct and indirect cost of emergency infrastructure development and deployment, for example, and the possibility of diversion of services. It is also essential to understand both probable and possible conflicts that this major development would have on existing uses of the estuary and the revenue that streams from these businesses.

There is the obvious likelihood that some existing businesses, from container ship lines to kayak renters, might choose to relocate. A proposal this massive demands big picture economic projections, such as considering what type of businesses would be attracted to this area post-LNG. Would the sustainable companies of the future shy away, companies that value quality of life – clean air, natural beauty, recreation opportunities, choices of cultural activities– for themselves and their employees? Would we be a magnet for dirty polluting industry shunned by other areas? Would the value of our homes decline?

Reluctance to require these studies seems largely based upon inoculation of an incorrect perception that a narrower focus is somehow required. Please don’t forget, at one time this corporation wanted to bypass the Clatsop County process altogether. Why should this proposal not be examined and understood, with light shone on all of its impacts?

*

For the remainder of my time I’ll temporarily narrow my own focus and talk a bit about dredging.

The staff report properly recommends denying the proposed change of 46 acres currently zoned Aquatic Conservation to Aquatic Development, or alternately allowing a conditional use permit. This is a big deal. The applicant proposes a major remodel of the river; digging a huge turning basin at the head of Clifton Channel. This would create a radical alteration of the river’s hydrology smack dab in the middle of the migratory path of salmon, steelhead and other anadromous fishes.

In 1979 and in subsequent revisions of the Columbia River Regional Management Plan, the Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST), with input from experts in salmon biology, estuarine ecology, and marine geology, delineated areas of the estuary most appropriate for the Aquatic Conservation designation. State and federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, reviewed the CREST plans.

The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development was closely involved with development of the Columbia River Regional Management Plan, as were Washington State resource agencies.

CREST has earned an extraordinary reputation for objective, science-based environmental evaluation and coastal zone planning analysis and recommendation. The CREST website (http://www.columbiaestuary.org/about.html) offers a brief review of the inception of this organization:

The initial purpose of CREST in 1974 was to gather scientific background material and produce a management plan for the estuary. The data initially gathered resulted in the 1977 publication, Columbia River Estuary Inventory of Physical, Biological, and Cultural Characteristics. The Inventory was used to develop the Columbia River Estuary Regional Management Plan in 1979, which was adopted in the local comprehensive plans, and shoreline master programs in the early 1980's. Based on data needs identified during the development of the Inventory, Congress authorized and funded the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program (CREDDP), which provided a wealth of information that is still heavily used by the local governments in resource planning, as well as by state and federal agencies.

The Clatsop County Commission, through the appropriate public process, adopted the Management Plan into the County’s comprehensive plan. The public trust was well served through this succession of events and those involved deserve respect.

The collaborative and well-reviewed designations of the Aquatic Conservation zones near Bradwood stood the test of time. If they are to be revisited at all it should be to consider additional restrictions to protect threatened and endangered species and their habitat.

It is the responsibility of this commission and the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners to protect the integrity and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, where the federal government would prefer to be calling the shots, it is essential that the County stand firm behind the decisions made through the informed, responsible process that I have described. The planners, advisors and reviewers never suggested that Bradwood and the waters adjacent would be appropriate for a massive and intrusive industrial development as proposed in the application. On the contrary, such use was clearly precluded.

Dredging this huge turning basin has, from when I first heard of this proposal, been the environmental damage too obvious to pass any reasonable scrutiny. Besides the radical change of hydrology at a crucial migratory juncture, we should expect increased turbidity, or material suspended in the water column, and the unleashing of chemical contaminants buried in the river’s sediment. The immediate harm inflicted upon endangered salmon upon the destruction of existing habitat could not be offset by any possible future mitigation.

The communities of the lower river know that pushing these endangered species closer to extinction has a reciprocal effect upon our economy. Managers have, and can be expected to continue to further restrict commercial and recreational fishing opportunities as endangered stocks decline. Fewer opportunities mean fewer fish landed, and that translates to economic losses to fishermen, gear suppliers, the hospitality industry. The losses ripple through the communities of the estuary.

This is just one example of how accommodating LNG development at Bradwood would favor one industry over others while harming the environment at the same time. Please accept your staff report on this aspect of the application and deny the request for rezoning from Aquatic Conservation or issuance of a conditional use permit. The harm to our environment and our economy would be too extreme. Thank you.