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."
LNG Pipeline through MHNF
Re: LNG Pipeline through MHNF
I've never heard of this either, and it sounds truly awful. 
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
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
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.
Re: LNG Pipeline through MHNF
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
here is a map of the proposed route: http://www.bark-out.org/content/530/MtH ... ingMap.pdf
-
Excursionista
- Posts: 425
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: LNG Pipeline through MHNF
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.
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.
Re: LNG Pipeline through MHNF
Couldn't they at least cut a deal with Warm Springs instead of going around?