Wildlife Promise » coal exports

The Survival of the Salmon is at Stake

Guest Author — Wed, 08 May 2013 21:36:35 +0000

Guest post by Michael O’Leary

Bob Rees, Northwest Guides & Anglers Association

With coal pollution already contributing to ocean acidification, rising stream temperatures, and toxic pollution from mercury and chemicals that wreck havoc on the fragile food web, there’s no doubt that the plans of the coal industry to turn the healthiest waters of the Northwest, Puget Sound and the Columbia River Basin into a super-highway for our nation’s oldest and dirtiest fuel is a serious threat facing us all.

But the tides are turning.

Yet another energy company, Kinder Morgan, has just today pulled the plug on their plans to use the Northwest to export Powder River Basin coal on the world market.

This fight, however, is far from over. Of the roughly 150 millions tons of coal proposed to be shipped through the waters of the Northwest, over 80% is still on track for being permitted.

“We won’t rest until all the coal companies quit polluting the waters that our fisheries depend on. Our community depends on salmon jobs and our families depend on healthy seafood. We’re fighting for survival, globally and locally.”
-Bob Rees, President of the Northwest Guides & Anglers Association

Join the fight to protect Northwest fish and wildlife from dangerous coal export proposals.

Michael O’Leary of Portland, Oregon is an Outreach Consultant for National Wildlife Federation working on coal export and renewable energy issues in the Pacific Northwest, where he’s been a political organizer for over 15 years. Michael is a certified cycling instructor and a certifiable bike enthusiast, and can often be found on two wheels, rain or shine.

Arch Coal: Incompetent or Arrogant?

Alexis Bonogofsky — Wed, 08 May 2013 21:21:49 +0000

That is the question that some of us are asking after Arch Coal submitted an obviously incomplete permit application for the proposed Otter Creek coal mine to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) at the end of last year.

Following Montana’s administrative laws and regulations, department staff did their job and rejected Arch Coal’s application in early April of this year, sending a 41-page deficiency notice to the company.

Mike Rowland, Arch Coal’s Montana Director speaking in Lame Deer, MT at a public hearing on the proposed Otter Creek coal mine.

Environmental Quality staff compared Montana’s environmental and mining regulations with the entire permit application and listed every instance where Arch Coal was not in compliance or omitted necessary data. The Department also found Arch Coal outright didn’t include entire sections, which the company said were “to be provided later.” Sections like a Fish and Wildlife Conservation Plan, a Reclamation Plan, a Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan, proof of liability insurance. You know, little things like that.

Words and phrases used over and over again in the deficiency notice include: must be submitted, inadequate, misleading, mis-represented, contradictory, not acceptable, unacceptable, inconsistencies, missing CAD data, correct this information, incorrect, discrepancy, unclear, correct this statement, confusion, does not adequately address, resubmit, inappropriate, insufficient, error, improper, missing, DEQ does not agree and cannot be verified. I’m not taking these words out of context. Read it for yourself. These phrases and words were used consistently in the document referring to Arch Coal’s data or analysis of the data.

Arch Coal will argue that it is common for mining permit applications to be returned to the company for more details or for minor reworking of the document. This is true.

What isn’t common, in Montana at least, is for a mining company to change the language of the laws and administrative rules in their permit application to “lessen their commitment.”

Yeah, they did that.

Rewriting Montana laws

Now, either Arch Coal has people working for them that are not qualified to produce a permit application or they intentionally changed the language of the regulations to see if they could slip one by the state of Montana and lessen their responsibilities to the land, water, air and citizens. Arch is used to working in Wyoming so my hunch is it’s the latter of the two.

On page 24 of the deficiency notice, Department staff write,

It appears that in some instances, OCC (Otter Creek Coal Co.) recites the applicable rule verbatim, and in other instances, modifies or omits rule language.

Then again on page 24, DEQ states,

OCC has again added the qualifier, “where feasible” to the permit language in the following paragraph (17.24.631(3)(b). OCC’s version of ARM 17.24.631 is not acceptable and must be modified: there is no ‘where feasible’ provision in the rule.

And on the final page there is one last sentence from Environmental Quality staff,

DEQ has noted that OCC has changed the language of the rules throughout the application to lessen the commitment required by the rules. As a reminder, OCC will be held to the standards set forth in the ARM l7.24.XXXX first and foremost, before the commitments in the permit application.

Where Feasible?

I think it is important to take a moment and think about what they did. It is something that takes a level of arrogance that is almost unimaginable to the average person. But then again, when you are acting on behalf of a large corporation like Arch Coal — with its numerous subsidiary companies — and no individual has to actually take responsibility for the actions of said corporation, I guess any discomfort at breaking rules gets dispersed among enough people that it is no big deal.

Wouldn’t it be great if you could just follow laws “where feasible.” Oh, I’m sorry officer, I was speeding through a school zone because slowing down just didn’t seem feasible.

What else is mind-boggling is that the small article in the Montana newspapers about the deficiency notice stated that Montana regulators were just asking for more information about the mine. The article completely ignored that Arch Coal didn’t submit entire required sections of the permit and rewrote Montana’s administrative rules.

It is understandable that Arch Coal is in a hurry. Port proposals to export coal to Asia on the west coast are dropping like flies and they don’t have a domestic market for their coal. They are in a race against time, history and the citizens of southeastern Montana, and Arch Coal is losing.

Thank the Montana Department of Environmental Quality staff

If you have a moment go ahead and send a thank you to the staff at the DEQ who did such a great job reviewing Arch Coal’s permit application.

DEQCoal@mt.gov

Why the Otter Creek Coal Mine Will Never be Built

Guest Author — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:04:52 +0000

Guest post by Vanessa Braided Hair.

Northern Cheyenne tribal members gather to oppose the proposed Otter Creek coal mine on January 17, 2013

Yesterday, a news station in Billings, Montana ran an interview with Arch Coal representative Mike Rowlands in which he stated that the Otter Creek coal mine, proposed for southeastern Montana, will be in operation by the end of the decade. I’m here to tell Mr. Rowlands and Arch Coal that the Otter Creek mine will never be built, and here’s why.

Arch Coal understands money. What Arch Coal doesn’t understand is community. They don’t understand history. They don’t understand the Cheyenne people whose ancestors fought and died for the landthat they are proposing to destroy. They don’t understand the fierceness with which the people, both Indian and non-Indian, in southeastern Montana love the land.

This is why not one dragline will rip the coal from the earth and not one dynamite blast will loosen the precious topsoil. It is why not one rail car will be loaded with coal and why not one toxic orange cloud will pass over someone’s house or the Tongue River. It is why not one burial site will be dug up and why not one elk will be displaced. It is why our water will continue to run clean and plentiful and our wildlife will continue to roam free.

This is why the proposed Otter Creek mine in southeastern Montana will never be built.

How Arch Coal treats the Northern Cheyenne community

I, along with hundreds of Northern Cheyenne tribal members, have attended all of the recent public hearings that were held on the proposed Otter Creek coal mine and Tongue River Railroad. These hearings were held to gather public input on the proposed coal mine and associated infrastructure that is needed to haul the coal out of southeastern Montana and to the West coast for export to Asia.

Standard procedure for Arch Coal representatives was to sit in the back of the room, checking their phones and looking at their watches. Many times, they would walk out in the middle of someone’s testimony. Mike Rowlands, head of Arch Coal in Montana, spoke to us for one minute.

Click here to view the embedded video.

One minute about a coal mine that will impact my people for generations. This is all he thought we deserved apparently.

Not once did they stand up and tell my community why we should support their efforts to build a massive coal mine on our borders. Not once did they tell us why we should bear the burden of the air, water and environmental pollution that will occur.

You know why they don’t do that? Because they don’t have to. To them, this mine is a done deal. The permit is a detail, a step in the process. A process rigged for one outcome. They don’t care if the Northern Cheyenne community supports them.

Well, I guess they did say they were just here to open a coal mine.

Fighting Back

By now, we have given Arch Coal and the state of Montana thousands of reasons why we are against this mine. Those thousands of reasons are people, individuals and families who are coming to public hearings, group meetings, signing petitions and getting involved.

In November 2012, Cheyenne tribal members turned out in force at public hearings to oppose the Tongue River Railroad. In December 2012, we attended coal export public hearings in Spokane and Seattle to oppose the development of any coal export terminals in the northwest and support our brothers and sisters from the northwest tribal nations who are fighting to protect their land and treaty rights.

Lucas King, Northern Cheyenne tribal member, testifies at the Seattle coal port hearing in December 2012. Photo by Paul K. Anderson.

Northern Cheyenne tribal members attend a public hearing on the proposed Otter Creek coal mine

On January 17, 2013, over 100 Northern Cheyenne peacefully took over a public hearing hosted by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. We did not do this lightly. The scoping hearings were meant to gather public comment on the Otter Creek mine. However, instead of a hearing, they wanted to have an open house where people were prevented from speaking in public to their community. Instead of people giving their opinions to the agency staff and their fellow community members, they would talk to a microphone in a corner. In Cheyenne country, we speak to people, not machines.

On February 20, 2013, we submitted detailed scoping comments to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality on the proposed mine. Over 250 Cheyennes helped write and develop these comments.

On March 20, 250 Cheyennes and our allies from the Southern Cheyenne, Three Affiliated Tribes, Oglala Lakota Nation, Yakama Nation gathered in Lame Deer to oppose any development of the Otter Creek and Tongue River Valley. This will not be a one-time event.

Then, on March 24 through the 30, a group of us travelled to Henry Red Cloud’s Renewable Energy Center on Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota to learn how to install solar photovoltaic systems.

Cheyenne students learn how to install solar PV at Henry Red Cloud’s Renewable Energy Center. Photo credit: Alexis Bonogofsky

We will continue to come together with our friends and allies until this mine is not longer and option in any generation. We will fight this at every step. More and more people join us every day. We will not tire.

We have been fighting for this land for hundreds of years and will continue to do so.

Protecting Otter Creek and Tongue River Valleys for Future Generations

Montana politicians who support the Otter Creek mine and Arch Coal are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the people. Since Montana’s leaders will not stand up for the people, the people will stand up and lead them. Politicians like Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester understand the importance of protecting the North Fork of the Flathead River from coal mining but not the lifeblood of southeastern Montana, the Tongue River. Why is protecting the Flathead River more important than the Tongue River?

We will not let it become a sacrifice zone for energy exports. We have already moved beyond the paradigms forced on us by the coal companies.

This message is for Arch Coal and all other mining companies that want to dig up our homeland.

We will not only stop the Otter Creek coal mine, we will pursue renewable, distributed energy and find real, sustainable solutions for our people.

Save Otter Creek sign on Highway 212 on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation

Vanessa Braided Hair is a Northern Cheyenne tribal member and is organizing tribal citizens to oppose the development of the proposed Otter Creek coal mine and Tongue River Railroads in southeastern Montana. She is a also a wildlands firefighter and descendent of the Northern Cheyenne Otter Creek homesteaders. She lives on Northern Cheyenne Reservation in southeastern Montana.

Northwest Governors Call on White House to Get Tough on Coal Exports

Guest Author — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:53:21 +0000

Fishing for Chinook Salmon at sunrise on the mouth of the Columbia River, August 23rd, 2012

Guest blog post by Michael O’Leary.

More coal burning means more mercury pollution, more acidification, more climate change, and more habitat loss.

With plummeting domestic coal consumption leaving coal companies desperate to find new pathways to new markets, the last investors in the dirtiest fossil fuel have now targeted the Pacific Northwest to be the nation’s largest gateway for coal exports.

Just two weeks ago Bob Rees, President of the Northwest Guides and Anglers Association, traveled from his home on Tillamook Bay to Oregon’s capitol to tell Governor Kitzhaber to take action and prevent the waterways of the Pacific Northwest from becoming a new pipeline for coal pollution.

Watch the video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Now in their remarkable joint letter of appeal to the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee have called for the “strongest possible terms” of review of air quality and habitat impacts at risk from proposed coal exports.

“We believe the decisions to continue and expand coal leasing from federal lands and authorize the export of that coal are likely to lead to long-term investments in coal generation in Asia, with air quality and climate impacts in the United States that dwarf those of almost any other action the federal government could take in the foreseeable future.”

-Gov. Kitzhaber and Gov. Inslee

Read the full text of their letter here.

What About the States?

Federal regulators aren’t the only decision makers involved, however.

State agencies in Washington and Oregon both have their own coal export project permit processes, and so far neither Gov. Kitzhaber nor Gov. Inslee have instructed their staff to block the proposed developments, though there’s been no rush to permit them, either.

Just this month Oregon’s Department of State Lands negotiated yet another multi-month delay for the Port of Morrow coal export proposal so that developers could have more time to respond to the additional questions recently raised.

What happens next?

If federal agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers decide to take a thorough look at the issues raised by Gov. Kitzhaber and Gov. Inslee, and if concerned National Wildlife Federation supporters continue to keep up the pressure, we’re hopeful we can keep the northwest coal-export-free.

But there’s no guarantee of that yet.

Keep up the fight to protect Northwest fish and wildlife from dangerous coal export proposals.

Keep Up the Fight to Stop Coal Exports in Oregon

Robyn Carmichael — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:08:56 +0000

Good news came last week in the battle to protect Oregon’s fish and wildlife from toxic coal pollution. Thanks to support from wildlife advocates like you, multi-billion dollar coal giant Ambre Energy experienced a major setback in its plans to ship coal out of the Port of Morrow in Oregon.

The decision came after Ambre Energy initially refused to provide key information requested by Oregon’s Department of State Lands (DSL), including the project’s impacts to fish and wildlife. Knowing that DSL would likely deny the permit without this information, Ambre was forced to ask for an extension—pushing back the final decision on the permit by five months.

Dangers to Local Fish and Wildlife

Orcas like this one are at risk from toxic coal pollution. Source: Minette Layne/WikiMedia Commons

Ambre Energy’s Morrow Pacific project would involve shipping 8.8 million tons of coal per year on mile-long trains from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming—spewing coal dust and diesel emissions along the way. From the port terminal, the coal would be barged down the river through sensitive habitat along the Columbia River gorge and transferred to giant ships to be exported overseas.

In addition to the impacts from toxic pollution to endangered orcas and other imperiled Northwest species, once the coal is exported overseas and burned, it would drive climate change, ocean acidification, mercury deposition, and other crises that affect species like salmon and steelhead, upon which orcas depend.

If approved, the Morrow Pacific project would be the first of five proposed coal export facilities in Oregon and Washington to get a green light. If all of them are built, over 150 million tons or more of coal would be moved by rail, barge, and tanker every year through those states—making it one of the world’s largest coal export regions.

Coal Exports Meet Rising Opposition

Public Opposition to Coal Exports, Seattle. NWF Photo by Michael O’Leary.

With coal on the decline in the U.S., the coal industry has their sights set on fast-growing China and India to turn the tide. They are spending millions of dollars in a desperate effort to rush these projects through and hide the true costs of their coal export plans. But a groundswell of public opposition to coal exports across the Northwest has played a critical role in slowing down the projects.

Tens of thousands of public comments, packed public hearings, and letters to the editor in local newspapers have turned up the pressure on decision makers by exposing the dangers of coal to the environment and communities. The Morrow Pacific delay is the second since the permit was filed just over a year ago, and just last week, two of the three investors of another proposed coal export terminal at Coos Bay, Oregon announced they are backing out.

Take Action for Northwest Wildlife!

Governor Kitzhaber and his Department of State Lands now have until September 1^st to approve or deny the Morrow Pacific permit. While the governor has recently called on federal officials to do a sweeping review of proposed ports, he’s also coming under heavy pressure from the coal industry. Before a final decision is made, it’s critical that Governor Kitzhaber knows his constituents support him in standing strong against coal export from Oregon’s shores.

There are countless reasons why we must stop coal exports: to sustain the diverse habitats and wildlife of our region, to keep our waters and air clean, to fight climate change—just to name a few.

TAKE ACTION! In the comment box below, tell us why stopping Northwest coal export projects matters to YOU, and we’ll share your messages with the Governor!

Montana’s Otter Creek Valley and Its Wildlife Need Your Help

Alexis Bonogofsky — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:32:21 +0000

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is accepting comments from the public on the proposed Otter Creek coal mine in southeastern Montana. Arch Coal, the second largest coal company in the nation, wants to strip mine the valley for coal and is asking DEQ to give them a permit. The deadline for comments is March 6, 2013.

The wildlife that live in this valley need your voice.

Otter Creek Photo credit: Kestrel Air Services (MEIC)

Why Otter Creek and Its Wildlife Need You

Take a minute and look at the above photo of the Otter Creek valley in southeastern Montana. The creek meanders down from Custer National Forest mountains and eventually drains into the Tongue River. A Northern Cheyenne friend of mine told me that all the names of the creeks and valleys are descriptive names and that Otter Creek was most likely named after the river otters that used to live there.

Bull Elk. Photo Credit Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

This is a valley and a region rich in wildlife. Mule deer, white-tail deer, pronghorn antelope, elk and hundreds of bird species including eagles and owls call it home. It is also adjacent to a black-footed ferret reintroduction site on the Northern Cheyenne reservation. It is beautiful and remote and has immense historical and cultural resources as many different tribes moved through the area for thousands and thousands of years to live and hunt.

Now imagine if the state of Montana allows Arch Coal to mine the valley. Arch will blast the land with dynamite to loosen the top soil and then bring in massive drag lines and heavy equipment to remove it. This equipment will be loud. The earth will shake with cast blasting, sometimes causing toxic orange clouds to form. They will build new roads, fragmenting intact habitat. Wildlife-vehicle collisions will increase due to the thousands of additional vehicles and trucks that will be on the rural highways in southeastern Montana. They will dig the coal up, put it in trucks and then load it on to a train to ship it to Asia.

Wildlife will be displaced from the valley, impacted by the noise, pollution and traffic. Streams and springs will be destroyed or depleted leaving wildlife with fewer options for a water source. Groundwater will be depleted which will impact agricultural wells, perennial springs and instream flows into the Tongue River. Invasive weeds will be introduced leaving less forage for wildlife. Habitat will be fragmented. There will be more wildfires due to sparks from coal trains. Poaching will increase due to increased access from new roads. Sacred sites and burial sites of Native American Tribes will be destroyed.

We also know that the mining and burning of this coal will contribute billions of tons of carbon into our atmosphere, harming wildlife and people.

These impacts are not just possible if a mine is built, they are inevitable.

Map of Otter Creek coal tracts

How you can help

Currently, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality is accepting public comments on what should be included in their draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). We need many voices, from around the country, to speak for the wildlife. It is imperative that we keep this coal in the ground.

You can tell the state of Montana what you think they should include in their study of this proposed mine.

1. You can submit your comments to the state of Montana.

OtterCreekEIS@mt.gov

Kristi Ponozo

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 200901

Helena, MT 59620

2. You can help NWF keep this coal in the ground.

Become a member or donate today.

3. You can join us online in our efforts to spread the word about NWF’s Tribal Lands Partnerships Program.

Here’s our Facebook page, or follow us on Twitter @NWFTribalLands to keep up on the lastest news.

If you need help submitting comments or want more information about the the proposed Otter Creek mine and its impacts on wildlife, please contact me at bonogofsky@nwf.org.

Coal Export Opposition Dominates Public Hearings

Guest Author — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:07:55 +0000

Guest blog post by Michael O’Leary.

The news media is getting it right. The recent public hearings over coal export proposals are proving that there’s overwhelming opposition to the plans of big energy companies to sell subsidized American fossil fuels overseas to benefit job growth in India, China, and South Korea.

Public Opposition to Coal Exports, Seattle. NWF Photo by Michael O’Leary.

Members of the National Wildlife Federation are expressing their concern for coal exports because of the toxic pollution, the climate disruption, and the loss of habitat that would be caused if the plans to burn more coal are allowed by federal regulators, and they’re submitting thousands and thousands of written comments in to the public record to make sure that decision makers stay focused on what’s important.

The Wyodak Coal Mine, Gillette, WY. NWF Photo by Michael O’Leary.

In addition to the now expected flurry of online organizing, something surprising is happening, and the press is taking note. Concerned community members are now turning out in droves to show their personal opposition to coal in packed public hearings, often after having to wait for hours just to have one brief chance for their voice to be heard.

The Seattle Times is saying that the opponents of coal exports make up the “vast majority” of Seattle hearing attendees. Oregon Public Broadcasting reported we “dominated” the Vancouver hearing. The Bellingham Herald reported that Whatcomb County attendees were “overwhelmingly” against coal.Sure, we were hard to miss. We made signs. We had stickers. We wore our t-shirts. We’ve done our homework to identify how the mining, transportation, and burning of coal would negatively impact our local communities and the planet as a whole. We were well prepared to make a good showing.

Lummi Nation Council Member Jay Julius Explains Proposed Coal Export Project Impacts to Xwe’ chi’ eXen (Cherry Point) and the Lummi Xa xalh Xachnging (Sacred Obligation). NWF Photo by Michael O’Leary.

But we’re doing better than good. In fact, we’re outnumbering the coal industry supporters by more than 10 to 1 at these hearings. And it’s increasingly trending in our favor. In Bellingham we packed the high school auditorium. By the time we got to Vancouver we packed a community college auditorium. In both Portland and Seattle, our RSVPs came in so fast, that the hearing organizers were forced to scramble to find larger venues than they had originally booked. We packed the Seattle Convention Center so full so that we maxed out the fire code capacity of two side-by-side halls at the same time.

That said, we’re a long way from successfully protecting our water, wetlands, clean air and climate from coal exports. While coal is on the decline here in the US, overseas consumption is still on the rise. We’ve still got work to do.

Be sure to do your part with the National Wildlife Federation action alerts on this issue, and do join us if you have the opportunity to get involved more personally. Staking your claim to clean air, clean water, and becoming a catalyst for the change to a cleaner global economy never sounded so good. And you might just make the newspapers.

Protect Northwest orcas and other wildlife from dirty coal! Speak up against these dangerous coal export proposals.

Coal Companies Under the Microscope For Taxpayer Ripoff

Peter LaFontaine — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:02:00 +0000

Human nature is a funny thing: we can ignore long-term, catastrophic problems like climate change, but heaven help the person who tries to rip us off. Sometimes, the two mesh, and we get a situation like the one that came down last week, when a bipartisan pair of Senators decided to take action on one of the biggest conservation issues facing the country: coal exports.

The coal industry has been ripping off taxpayers for decades, but the tides may be turning. (Photo: Philip Taylor)

In a letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) asked them to explain some serious accounting problems that may have cost taxpayers millions. At issue is whether coal companies are avoiding royalty payments by ducking under weak federal rules, in order to pad their profit margins by selling federally owned coal at jacked-up prices overseas — the answer appears to be a resounding “YES,” and the senators want to find out just how much the government was bilked, and whether that money can be recouped after the fact. The DOI’s Inspector General is already conducting an investigation, as is the Government Accountability Office, and Murkowski and Wyden’s interest lends support to a growing public outcry against the coal industry’s shady business practices.

It’s hard not to feel a little giddy about this development (at least for those of us who track this stuff for a living). When your entire business model is pegged to degrading the environment, you had better be sure that you’re keeping your financial ledgers clean, but companies like Peabody, Arch Coal, and others have been scamming the public for so long that it’s second nature. The U.S. has shifted away from burning coal for power, but other countries—particularly in Asia—are still paying top dollar for it, and the industry is trying to take advantage of record prices by mining cheap American coal and selling it at tremendous profits overseas. Their mistake was in trying to avoid paying the federal government the royalties it was due, by setting up corporate middlemen and various other dodges that skirted the boundaries of legality and undermined the public trust. As Wyden said in a press release:

This is so obvious it shouldn’t need to be said: Coal companies need to be paying taxpayers all of the money they are owed. If regulators, or decades-old laws, are not doing enough to protect the public interest, our committee intends to find out, and to fix it.

Pod of orcas near Mayne Island, just miles away from a major proposed coal export terminal. (Photo: Miles Ritter)

Now, I’m all for ethical business practices, but I’m more excited to see what this could mean for the environment. As part of the Power Past Coal coalition, National Wildlife Federation has been working for over a year to draw attention to the industry’s plans to send hundreds of millions of tons of coal through the Pacific Northwest each year, a game-changing development for the global climate and for the communities and wildlife along the rail and shipping routes. More coal would also mean more mining in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana, which is one of America’s last and most precious big-game hunting areas, and is already under serious pressure from mining (the PRB is the country’s coal hub) and other industrial activity.

But regardless of what motivates our elected officials, if the Senate starts taking the profit question seriously, they’ll have to dig into the question of who is really benefiting from all this mining — is it the American people, or is it a few industry executives? The truth ain’t rocket science, and it could go a long way toward protecting iconic species and the health of our planet.

Take Action! Protect threatened wildlife like salmon and orcas by speaking out against coal exports in the Pacific Northwest.

You can learn more about the danger of coal exports at NWF’s website, or check out Power Past Coal for more ways to get involved.

Tanker Accident at Vancouver Coal Terminal – A Sign of Things to Come?

Peter LaFontaine — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:11:41 +0000

People in Washington and Oregon have been turning out in force to protest the coal industry’s plans to send millions of tons of dirty fuel through their backyards, and an incident today just added to the laundry list of reasons coal is a bad bet. From Metro News CA:

Efforts to stop more coal from falling into the Georgia Strait are underway after a massive tanker crashed through a coal exporter’s conveyor belt at Roberts Bank in Delta early Friday.

The 180,000 tonne Cape Apricot – a ship too large to traverse the Panama Canal – destroyed more than 100 metres of the belt leading to Westshore Terminals’ largest loading berth at 1 a.m., dumping about 30 tonnes (one third of a rail car) of coal sitting on the belt into the water.

“You’re not expecting a ship to ram through your coal way,” Westshore spokesman Ray Dykes said Sunday. “It’s like when a car goes through a restaurant window – it’s like we own the restaurant.”

Westshore Terminals, just across the border in Vancouver, is the biggest coal port on the West coast. You can see a photo here (I’m trying to get permission to include it in this blog) where the freighter sheared right through a long conveyor belt that stretches from the dock to the shore. The coal spilling into the water is visible even from several hundred feet above…drifting down-current toward who knows where. The toxins in the coal will pollute the water and harm wildlife, not to mention causing a massive headache for the port authorities.

Citizens rallied Thursday night in opposition to the Morrow Pacific coal terminal project (Photo: Columbia Riverkeeper)

Tanker accidents are another heavy risk of exporting coal, alongside train wrecks, pollution, wildlife impacts, and dozens of other problems. And if the coal industry gets its way, we’re talking about a LOT of tanker traffic in a pretty small space — it takes more than a couple of boats to transport 150 million tons of coal each year, and that means more accidents, more collisions, and more coal spills.

Oregon’s Governor John Kitzhaber has been one of the key figures trying to get the whole story before state and federal agencies make any decisions about these coal terminals, and he recently spoke of the need to consider the issue from a broader perspective:

What does that mean in terms of our own energy security? What does it mean in terms of our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and shift to a low-carbon future?

I would argue [the federal government is] really underpricing coal, which means we are subsidizing the development of coal-fired plants in Asia. The way the wind blows, all that mercury is going to blow back this way.

He’s right, of course, and it’s great to see that someone in authority is taking these problems seriously. But the industry and too many people in the federal government continue to plug up their ears and say, “It’s no big deal! We know what we’re doing so y’all can just go home and relax.”

That’s not going to cut it. If the industry knew what they were doing, we wouldn’t have accidents like the one in Vancouver, or traffic jams caused by malfunctioning coal trains, or deadly derailments. Orcas and other marine life in Puget Sound are at particular risk, and we need your help to keep our coastlines clean and our communities safe — visit NWF.org/coalexports to learn more, and take action below!

Speak up now! Tell the White House to say NO to coal exports in the Pacific Northwest.

Pacific Port Community Dodges a Coal-Shaped Bullet

Peter LaFontaine — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:33:40 +0000

Developers have canceled plans to export coal from the Port of Grays Harbor in Washington state, citing other uses for the port that are more economically viable. The project was one of six export facilities in the works in Washington and Oregon and, although Grays Harbor was the smallest of the proposals, its cancellation marks a milestone for the coalition of health groups, conservationists and other citizens concerned about the impacts of shipping hundreds of millions of tons of coal to Asia.

Kassie Rohrbach, NWF’s coal export campaign manager, noted that the groundswell of public opposition has created an environment of investor uncertainty for the coal industry. “Our work to raise public awareness of the environmental and health risks this antiquated fuel source is only beginning,” said Rohrbach. “We won’t stop until all of the proposed projects are off the table.”

RailAmerica, the company behind the proposal, thinks that better opportunities lie elsewhere:

“Over the past year, we have been performing due diligence on that property to evaluate its fit for an export bulk terminal,” [RailAmerica VP Gary] Lewis told the [port] commissioners at their regular monthly meeting. “We spent a lot of money. We spent a lot of time, and unfortunately at this point we believe that there are other uses and other opportunities for that terminal that are much more likely to generate jobs, economic development, tax revenues, (and provide a) general increase in business for the Port and, of course, for RailAmerica and for Puget Sound and Pacific Railroad.”

Grays Harbor on the Pacific Coast is the first of 6 western port proposals to falter. Is more good news on the way? (Map: NWF)

National Wildlife Federation has been working to stop these export projects in their tracks, and recently released a report on how coal shipments would affect salmon and fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. The True Cost of Coal details how the industry’s plans would result in a massive increase in diesel emissions, coal dust in waterways, and direct habitat impacts, all of which would upset the delicate balance of these critical ecosystems and cast a long shadow over the northwest’s fishing industry and recreation.

At least five projects are still in the works in the region, and coal companies are turning to the Gulf Coast and Atlantic ports to keep their profits rolling in. But this news may have a ripple effect across the industry, and the citizens of Grays Harbor have dodged a bullet.

For more, visit NWF.org/coalexports

Save Orcas and other wildlife from dirty coal! Speak up now to prevent these port projects from moving forward.