Cascadia Wildlands

State, Alyeska deny accountability for spill response

2008-04-10T12:30:00.000-07:00

Oil company and state regulators' heads are firmly stuck in the sand about the risk of oil spills from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. This was evidenced in competing briefs just filed in our legal appeal of the oil spill contingency plan (or lack thereof) for the Copper River.

Our legal argument is that Alyeska's oil spill contingency plan must identify and protect environmentally sensitive areas. Politicians and PR people like to claim environmentally sensitive areas are protected. The laws say they are in as many words.

The oil companies don't want to and the state says they don't have to, but a growing chorus of Alaskans are demanding that they must include the Copper River area, home to a world-famous fishery, renowned wildlands, and livelihood for thousands of Alaskans. Even a small spill into the water could spell disaster. Fishermen, who lived through the Exxon Valdez in neighboring Prince William Sound, don't aim to let that happen.

Alyeska responds to this clear version of the law with the absolutely nuts claim that as long as they can come up with a single, successful, hypothetical spill scenario, then they've met the law and don't have to do anything else. Their preferred scenario happens to be in the interior forests above the Slana River, an entire mountain range away from the Copper River drainage.

Their argument is a last-ditch effort to avoid a fact-finding hearing into the gaping holes we've identified in spill prevention and response planning on the Copper River. Fishermen, Alaska Natives, Landowners, business owners, scientists are lined up to prove our case. We can prove that Alyeska's plan guarantees failure to respond to spills at the Klutina, Tazlina, or Gulkana River crossings.

This is not a remote concern. There is an oil spill somewhere on the pipeline every month, on average. Judging from the historic rate of spills, oil companies calculate what corresponds to a 19% chance of a major spill from the pipeline into the Copper River watershed.

It is absolutely crazy, but a one in five chance of destroying an international treasure and someone else's livelihood is cost-effective for oil companies.

It gets even crazier. At Alyeska the pressure from above is for relentless cost-cutting. So they've gone the extra mile and are skimping on spill prevention and response as well. Apparently the cost of letting spills happen and dealing with lawsuits, is cheaper than getting prepared to a standard that would contain spills before they escape downstream.

Given they are making billions of dollars in profit each year, it's not too much to as BP, Conoco and Exxon to do things right.

The oil company's lawyer laments that protecting the Copper River is an unreasonable burden, because, "the entire pipeline route is within one important watershed or another."

Hmm.

/Staff%20Legal%20Brief.pdf

/Cascadia%20legal%20brief.doc

/Alyeska%20legal%20brief.PDF

Meeting a goshawk at Scott Peak

2008-03-25T12:28:00.000-07:00

Dave saw it first, circling in from the southwest. The goshawk silently lit atop a big hemlock snag. It sat there, watching. Dave smiled, pointed up into the solid green tangle. "Here we go," he said. Needle in a haystack. The four of us stood on the snow, necks craned up to the forest canopy, captivated.

The Goshawk was bigger than I'd expected. With proud, strong chest he cocked his head just a little to watch. He stayed on the branch just long enough for me to snap a photo to prove he exists, then lit off back up the hill.

That goshawk encounter was the highlight of a recent groundtruth trip we took with fellow Alaskan conservationists Larry Edwards, Dave Beebe, and Don Hernandez, to the Scott Peak area of the Tongass National Forest north of Petersburg. The Forest Service is set on logging this place as part of its failing dinosaur of an old-growth logging program. They've decided to take the best buffers of old-growth that are left from a legacy of clearcutting in this valley. We were there to bear witness, learn from the land, and do what we could to help protect it.

What we found was that wildlife were using the remaining patches of old-growth more than you'd expect. Contrary to assurances, from those who should know better, that the place was ruined anyway, we found the place has a beating heart of wildness yet. There were deer tracks in proposed logging units on North-facing slopes at 800+ ft. There were tracks of a pack of wolves on a gorgeous salmon stream only 100 feet from more proposed clearcuts. Marten were around, too, and sign of marten traps along the road. We looked at stands of gnarled, old hemlocks, useless as lumber, and wondered how much money they'd lose cutting them down.

Because they are almost extinct, Queen Charlotte goshawks are one of the very few animals that are at all protected from logging by the Forest Service. There are so few goshawks left that the Forest Service protects them individually, by buffering their nests with "no-cut" zones. The nest for this particular goshawk had been buffered. But, that buffer had recently been erased and a larger one rejected because, according to the Forest Service, the nest was no longer occupied.

We were guided to this particular bird in this particular spot, to prove them wrong, by Larry. Larry's the Greenpeace forest campaigner out of Sitka and a relentless sleuth. He'd unearthed a map showing the nest location from the labyrinthine Forest Service files through the Freedom Of Information Act. The map was put there by the late Forest Service wildlife biologist Glen Ith, truly one of the heroes of conservation and scientific integrity in the Tongass. Glen himself had planned to be with us here, today, but he died a sudden death in his sleep only a couple weeks before. Life is precious.

It was Glen who had recommended the substantial "no-cut" buffer around this goshawk's nest. His superiors overturned his proposal because it interfered with proposed logging units. The Forest Service science machine thus turned its service from the forest to industry, took Glen off the job, removed his wildlife analysis from the project file, tried to fire him (over vaster and not unrelated issues), and started claiming that the goshawk nest was no longer occupied, making it clear for logging.

So the four of us fanned out, checking the branches of every tree for signs of the nest or the bird. It's a ridiculously difficult endeavor, but amazingly, magically, Larry spotted the nest, nestled beneath the low branches of an ancient hemlock tree.

Ferns hung from the big, old branches. But, no bird. No sign of the bird. This was still early in the season for them to be nesting. Goshawks tend to keep up several nests and rotate among them through various years. That is apparently what this pair has done. So, we'll have to return later in the season to find them in their nest.

Then the goshawk called. He was laughing, I imagine. From somewhere just up the hill. Near the little creek and a temple of cedar snags. Laughing at us from his new, hidden nest.

The Truth About the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

2008-02-12T17:32:00.001-08:00

CORDOVA—With the Supreme Court set to hear climactic arguments February 27, injured Alaska fishermen have launched a campaign to get the truth out about Exxon's 1989 oil spill in Prince William Sound, from the tanker, Exxon Valdez.

The website, www.wholetruth.net, acts as a clearinghouse of information and contacts. Tying together law, science, economics, sociology, traditional knowledge and more, the website tells the real story of the spill, and of the ongoing litigation to hold Exxon responsible.

The grassroots, citizen effort is made necessary by a concerted effort by Exxon corporation to delay judgement, hide the truth, and confuse issues. After a lengthy trial, in 1993, Exxon was found guilty by a jury and ordered to pay a $5 billion punitive damages award. They've unleashed an army of lawyers to avoid paying it ever since.

Exxon argues arcane points of maritime law to claim the Captain alone is at fault, not the company. Captain Hazelwood, who seemed truly remorseful, quietly served out his community service in Valdez. Exxon corporation on the other hand has avoided paying a single penny of the punitive award, while raking in $40 profit last year. Exxon's handling of the case is a saga of strong-arm corporate legal tactics. Their legal team is a shameful triumph of cynicism.

It's been 19 years. Over 6,000 of the injured plaintiffs have died without seeing justice. Truly and literally, Exxon mocks the justice system.

At stake before the Supreme Court is not only the $5 billion punitive judgement, but also fundamental legal issues of corporate accountability, especially for water quality. Everyone who is interested in not having poisons dumped into their water has an interest in the outcome of this case.

So check out the site and spread the word.

Copper River oil spill contingency survey out for public comment

2008-02-06T15:56:00.000-08:00

CORDOVA— Alyeska's survey of the Copper River for oil spill contingency planning is out for public review and comment.

The report is a result of a Condition of Approval imposed by the state requiring a survey of the main stem of the Copper River. The Condition was imposed in response to public outcry from Copper River stakeholders, who noted the existing plans say nothing about the Copper. The fear is that a spill into the river would destroy the priceless Copper River salmon fisheries.

Alyeska's survey notes several "Areas of Opportunity," or containment sites, along the main stem of the Copper river. These are places where they think that spilled oil flowing downriver could theoretically be captured by boom and skimmer gear. The survey is an amendment to the larger contingency plan, and is subject to public review.

While certainly better than nothing, the proposed changes do more to highlight the insufficiency of existing plans than resolve concerns. The containment methods described in the survey would seem to have very limited ability to recover oil. An expert opinion recently commissioned by Cascadia, shows that these planned containment methods would recover only negligible oil. Even with a flawless execution, the swift river currents, quicksand, shifting gravel bars, and high silt loads would all make the response tragically ineffective.

Alyeska's response plan is way too slow. After oil has escaped into the river, it is already too late for effective spill response. The bottom line is: oil cannot be allowed to enter any river or stream in the Copper River Watershed. Period.

That is why we will continue pursuing legal action against the State regulators and Alyeska, until they have fully recognized and protected the Copper River.

To take action, download the pdf of the report below, and send comments by March 10 to:

Alaska Dep't of Environmental Conservation

ATTN: Rebecca Spiegel

411 W. 4th Ave.

Anchorage AK 99501

bspiegel@jpo.doi.gov

And send a copy to me, at gscott@cascwild.org.

/Copper%20River%20AOO%20Report.pdf

Chugach Forest plans big fee increases

2008-01-31T17:40:00.000-08:00

The five-year plan for recreation facilities on the Chugach National Forest shows they are tackling a budget deficit by increasing fees dramatically, and pursuing partnerships with citizens to help with maintenance. One cabin, at Pete Dahl Slough, on the Copper River Delta, is also scheduled for decommissioning.

The overall maintenance and operating costs for facilities on the whole forest is listed at $1,543,053. Yet, the appropriated funds available from Congress are only $918,284. So, bills have been piling up through the Bush administration. The plan, signed in 2006, shows a $1,418,090 maintenance backlog on the various cabins, campgrounds, trails, signs, and visitor centers on the forest.

According to the plan, the average fee at cabins is going up to $75 during peak season. That's a huge jump. It ventures into the realm of unaffordable for many families. Overall, the plan is to raise $635,759 from fees each year, more than triple the current total. Yikes.

This is a National Forest, not a private park. Right?

I honestly don't know what to think of the plan, beyond the obvious thought that these Republicans Stevens, Murkowski, Young, and Bush have really left us in a pickle. Example: while this was happening, Stevens spent $10 million to build the Whistle Stops project, which primary purpose was to be a photo-op for himself cutting a ribbon—ANY ribbon— on the forest's 100-year anniversary. Recreation on the Chugach costs peanuts compared to the jillions of dollars being squandered by the Feds on REALLY dumb things, like the war.

But on the other hand, there is real stewardship responsibility in citizens for our public lands. We don't have to let the cabins and outhouses fall apart, just because our president is an idiot.

So, read the plan. And let me know what you think!

/Chugach5yrplan.pdf

Cascadia sues BIA for release of information

2008-01-29T16:37:00.000-08:00

Cascadia Wildlands Project filed a freedom of information act lawsuit against the Bureau of Indian Affairs today, in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon. We are demanding that the BIA turn over all documents related to the proposed Shepard Point Road in Cordova, Alaska.

The BIA recently made a decision to construct the controversial road and port project (see our previous post). Unfortunately, they chose the most damaging, most expensive, and least effective alternative location for the facility—at the bottom of an avalanche chute, at a place called Shepard Point.

We suspect the recent decision was motivated more by political favor-trading, than by project criteria of what location would be best for oil spill response. The documents we requested are expected to reveal some of the back-room machinations behind this decision. Separate, previous FOIA requests have showed high-level involvement, including by former Governor Murkowski, Sen. Ted Stevens, and now-Federal Gasline Coordinator Drue Pearce.

Legally our case is open and shut. I expect a speedy resolution. The BIA has just flat ignored the law.

Today's FOIA lawsuit is the latest chapter in the project's divisive history. We hope it's one of the last. Re-directing this pork-barrel project to one of the alternative locations closer to town would better serve spill response, avoid environmental and safety problems, and cost only half as much as BIA's proposal.

BIA's project has big problems. Sooner or later, they'll have to stop hiding and face up to them.

Read the Complaint

/FOIA%20Complaint.pdf

Tongass National Forest opened to more logging

2008-01-25T15:40:00.000-08:00

CORDOVA—The new plan looks an awful lot like the old plan on the Tongass National Forest, in Southeast Alaska.

The Bush administration plan released today is designed to get the cut out, at the expense of residents, wildlife and conservation.

This can't be called a surprise. Over the last few months we've been dealing with a series of timber sale proposals of exceptional size and viciousness. Apparently, this is their long-term plan.

A glance at the new Forest Plan Record of Decision map shows they propose to log hundreds of thousands of acres. It's more of a logging plan, than a forest management plan. This is a last-ditch attempt to revitalize the failed old-growth logging industry in Southeast Alaska.

The truth is, the highest future value in Southeast Alaska is in fishing, tourism, subsistence, and quality of life. Logged-over public lands are a dime a dozen. People come from all over the world to see unspoiled forests teeming with deer, wolves and salmon.

There are useful things the forest service could be doing to help ensure this prosperous future. Restoration thinning for deer winter habitat, and thoughtful road restoration, are a better use of taxpayer money and Forest Service energy.

The new plan does nothing to address a pair of looming crises: lack of winter deer habitat, and a money pit on the highly-subsidized system of logging roads.

Deer Population on the Brink

Subsistence is the highest and best use of the wild, old-growth forests of the Tongass. Continued subsistence opportunities are threatened by a several generations of intensive logging, leaving very little winter habitat for deer.

Last winter saw major reductions in deer populations on the Tongass, leading to emergency closures of hunting. The major limiting factor for deer is the amount of winter habitat during severe winters—namely, low-elevation, especially south-facing, old-growth forests.

These big trees are exactly the same areas targeted in the plan for logging. Yet, the new plan, like the old one, contains no assurance of continued subsistence opportunities. The Forest Service is willing to promise timber volume for mills, but is not willing to promise deer for subsistence users.

The situation is made worse by Forest Service reliance of flawed computer models regarding protection for deer on individual timber sales. This head-in-the-sand approach leaves deer populations only two consecutive hard winters away from a catastrophic collapse.

Legacy of Road Maintenance

A major cost of the logging-centered approach are the tens of millions in federal subsidies needed to build and maintain the system of logging roads.

There are tens of millions of dollars of deferred maintenance on the road system. The new plan doesn't propose to do much of anything about it. Instead, it proposes to dig the hole even deeper by building more new roads.

These roads kill fish by blocking migration and through erosion. High road densities also basically ensure that wolves will be killed off.

Ironically, the Forest Service is so far behind on road maintenance already, that they have to close roads as soon as they build them for lack of maintenance ability. Taxpayer-funded roads are built and opened for logging trucks, then closed to use by locals.

So, expect the controversy over logging on the Tongass to continue. Cascadia will continue our work reviewing and challenging illegal timber sales, while pursuing and encouraging road restoration opportunties.

For More Information, get in touch:

gscott@cascwild.org (907) 424-3835

or for more detailed information on Tongass Forest issues, go to the excellent page of Sitka Conservation Society.

-GWS 1/25/07

Alaska Pipeline Threatens Downstream Residents

2008-01-16T13:24:00.000-08:00

A new expert analysis commissioned by the Cascadia Wildlands Project shows a chilling downstream exposure to oil spills from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline into the Copper River.

The jaw-dropping results of the analysis show, using the oil companies’ own response planning assumptions, that an spill into the Copper River watershed could reach as far as Cook Inlet and Kodiak.

Author James Brady, of North Cape Fisheries Consulting, was selected to do the analysis because of his first-hand experience. Brady was the state’s area fisheries manager before, during and after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. He writes that Aleyska’s planned response to a spill from the pipeline into the Gulkana, Tazlina or Klutina Rivers would:

Send a plume of oil smearing west along Alaska's coastline, as far as Cook Inlet;
quickly close the popular Copper River commercial, subsistence and sport fisheries;
send shock waves through markets;
have long-lasting impacts to subsistence users;
Even for a small spill, Brady writes, "subsistence fishers would see oil on the water and oil fouling their fish wheels or dip nets."
expose state agencies to massive costs trying to keep downstream fisheries open;

We had long known that the Copper River was exposed to a spill from the TAPS, but the fact that oil could travel as far as Kodiak, even the Alaska Peninsula, was a surprise. These are the exact areas still suffering from the Exxon Valdez spill. Another spill would be a devastating 1-2 punch for wildlife and residents. It is beyond ironic that the same company, Alyeska, who was in charge of first response in the 1989 incident as well, is again taking risks with Alaska.

The Brady Report also offers strong opinions about the high value of the Copper River fisheries, and need to protect them. The Copper is one of the world's greatest wild rivers. Whether with a dipnet, driftnet, fishwheel, or paycheck, tens of thousands of Alaskans depend directly on the Copper to put food on their tables. The lucrative commercial salmon fishery is world-famous. One Copper River King in an Alaska fisherman's net is worth more than a barrel of oil on Wall Street. The Copper River Delta is largest contiguous wetland on the Pacific coast of North America, supporting entire world populations of some species of birds.

The Brady Report was commissioned by Cascadia Wildlands Project as an expert opinion in our legal challenge of the state approval of Alyeska's oil spill contingency plan. It was filed with our witness lists and exhibits December 17, 2007. We are arguing they break the law in refusing to identify or protect the Copper as an "environmentally sensitive area." Under existing regulations this would require a higher level of spill prevention and readiness.

We are joined in the legal action by commercial fisherman Bill Black, and entepreneur Lauren Padawer, Alaska Glacial Mud Co. We also have strong support from villages and tribes upriver... more on that later.

Special thanks for the many whose grassroots financial support for citizen oversight of the pipeline possible—in particular Brainerd and Alaska Conservation Foundation, and Cordova District Fishermen United.

—GWS 1/16/08

BIA decides to build a road to nowhere

2007-12-06T15:49:00.001-08:00

CORDOVA, AK—A Decision has been signed by the Department of the Interior choosing the controversial Shepard Point location for a proposed road and port, according to tribal and government sources. Even with a Decision, it is far from certain whether any actual construction will occur. Internal squabbling, legal and financial troubles continue to dog the project.

The counter-productive and illegal Decision would build 4.5-miles of coastal road, and a deepwater port, in eastern Prince William Sound near Cordova. The selected location would actually hurt oil spill response, while handing corporations a deepwater port to use for heavy industry. Hopefully, this Decision is the last gasp of a bad idea.

No public notice or copy of the decision has been issued. We expect it to be posted on the official project website shortly: www.cordovaresponsefacility.com.

The Decision is certain to prove contentious. In choosing Shepard Point locations, BIA passed up several several alternative locations in-town, that were endorsed by project critics. Selection of the Shepard Point location comes at the insistence of Eyak corporate officials, who also just happen to own that land, and who hope to steamroll the project through opposition from their own members, local fishermen, oil spill responders, conservationists, and the Army Corps of Engineers.

This project has been bouncing around one stage or another of planning for over twenty years, has failed repeatedly and I predict will again. Three major unanswered questions face BIA on issuing this decision:

1. Who will pay?

At last count they were about $20 million short on funds for construction. This is even after tapping the Exxon Valdez state settlement for $10 million, and another $8 million of taxpayer transportation dollars.

2. How does the Decision get around the Clean Water Act?

The BIA-selected alternative is illegal under the Clean Water Act, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency. That's because it would destroy critical wetlands, when there are "practicable" alternatives that would achieve the same purpose. Construction can't happen without Corps permits.

3. What is the real agenda?

Is this Decision actually about oil spill response? If it is, then why does the selected location slow down initial oil spill response time, which experts agree is by far the most important?

If it is, then why aren't any oil spill responders onboard? One would expect Alyeska SERVS and the Coast Guard would be involved in the project, but none are. SERVS has said they would not use a facility at Shepard Point, even if it is built for them.

BIA claims oil spill response requires a deepwater port. That is not true. There are no deep draft spill response vessels for Cordova, where the shallow-water Delta is actually the top oil spill concern. (More on that in other posts). What does require deepwater ports are large ships, such as those that would ship coal or timber off of Chugach Corp's holdings on the Copper River Delta, or cruise ships.

Stopping this project remains Cascadia's top priority in Alaska. The port, with deepwater capacity in private hands, would be the lynchpin for a generation's worth of resource extraction schemes threatening the Copper River Delta. Project opponents, including the local fishermen's union, enthusiastically endorse several alternative locations that would better achieve oil spill and economic development goals.

If they are serious about oil spill response, BIA will embrace one of the consensus alternatives, not push a polical pork machine. Their own studies identify three affordable alternatives, that could better achieve the same oil spill response benefits for all the same spill response vessels, faster, for less than half the cost, and without any environmental controversy.

—GWS

For more information, call our field office in Cordova at 424-3835, or gscott@cascwild.org.