LNG Pipeline through MHNF

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
Post Reply
14270
Posts: 42
Joined: September 11th, 2008, 8:50 pm

LNG Pipeline through MHNF

Post by 14270 » December 18th, 2008, 10:24 pm

I haven't been following the LNG terminal situation as closely as I probably should have been. This is the first I've heard of the pipeline being routed through NF land.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/inde ... pipel.html


"The companies hope the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will issue a draft environmental impact statement for the project in six to eight months and win final approval in late 2009. They hope to complete construction in November 2011."

User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1422
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Southeast Portland

Re: LNG Pipeline through MHNF

Post by Charley » December 18th, 2008, 11:02 pm

I've never heard of this either, and it sounds truly awful. :x

Does anyone know the proposed route? If it's going to Central Oregon, it seems like it might have to go through the Gorge first. Or could it go through the US 26 corridor? If not, then how the heck do they get it over the Cascades without cutting through Wilderness areas? And is it really accurate to say that it would require a highway sized clear cut corridor? Unless they're planning to let people walk right on top of the darn thing, how the heck would they avoid trails? And if not, they'd be cutting the NF right in two, wouldn't they? Can you imagine a 36" LNG pipe running over that many streams?

Nuts,
Charley

User avatar
Jane
Posts: 3639
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: LNG Pipeline through MHNF

Post by Jane » December 18th, 2008, 11:13 pm

BARK has been active in the environmental concerns of this proposal; you can send in your comments and concerns also!: http://www.bark-out.org/content/article ... ert&id=530

here is a map of the proposed route: http://www.bark-out.org/content/530/MtH ... ingMap.pdf

User avatar
Excursionista
Posts: 425
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: LNG Pipeline through MHNF

Post by Excursionista » December 26th, 2008, 4:37 pm

Pipeline Update from the Oregonian on 12/24:
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/i ... clear.html

Nice of 'em to sneak it in just before Christmas. Was there a public hearing on this, and if so, was it one of those "Hey, come to a hearing tonight in the middle of nowhere" announcements that get buried in the depths of the paper? In my opinion, this is criminal. Not just illegal, but morally reprehensible.

The gist of the article:

"The Forest Service plans to loosen environmental standards so the proposed Palomar natural gas pipeline can cut through 47 miles of the Mount Hood National Forest.

Building the pipeline would require clearing a freewaywide path through the forest, including sections that, under forest management plans, are protected from clear-cutting, right-of-way easements and soil disturbance.

...the pipeline would require clearing 106 acres of old-growth forest protected by the Mount Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

The Forest Service would also have to revise rules that prohibit utility corridors; limit cutting around federally designated Wild and Scenic Clackamas River, spotted owl habitats, hiking trials and recreational areas; prevent use of heavy equipment for clearing vegetation on unstable slopes; protect riparian areas; and restrict building new roads.

In all, the pipeline would... extend 217 miles. Work crews would cut through public and private land using backhoes, rock cutters, tractor-mounted mechanical rippers and blasting tools, clearing about 710 acres of national forest land."

The sidebar states:
Comments to the Forest Service should focus on "reasonable alternatives and measures to avoid or lessen any adverse changes in the goods and services produced by the Forest," according to a letter from the agency. "The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be."

In other words, if you believe the pipeline shouldn't be built, your ideas aren't reasonable. If this weren't a public forum, you'd get to hear what I consider reasonable. And what, exactly, is the forest producing here? Jack squat, that's what. The forest will be cut down and thus be "producing" less.

bcostley
Posts: 184
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm

Re: LNG Pipeline through MHNF

Post by bcostley » December 26th, 2008, 8:18 pm

Couldn't they at least cut a deal with Warm Springs instead of going around?

Post Reply