March
2004
To read any of the articles
listed, click on the link. To return to the list, click on the arrow
at the end of the article.
Application
Is Completed for Natural Gas Terminal
Fight Brews
Over LNG Plants
Matilija
Dam Removal Project Backed Up
LNG
Public Scoping Meeting Update
USACE
Blows up Embrey Dam in Fredericksburg, VA
Seawalls
put one of state's great assets at risk
Application Is Completed
for Natural Gas Terminal
BHP Billiton now faces a
review of its proposed... $500-million floating port off the coast of
Oxnard.
They are seeking permits
to build a huge floating boat/plant to convert super cooled Liquefied
Natural Gas from tankers to gaseous phase natural gas just 20 miles
offshore from Oxnard, and to pipe the gas onshore from the plant. Some
of you may recall when this was proposed for Cojo at the Bixby Ranch,
at the Deer Creek area of Malibu, and later at Ormond Beach in the past
20 years. It was shot down each time, but must be quite a profitable
proposal since they keep resurrecting it. LNG is extremely
flammable and dangerous and any plant is required to be a certain safe
distance from any population base for public safety.
If you have access to their
web site, you can read the article at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/ventura/la-me-vnlng28jan28,1,1431686.story?coll=la-editions-ventura
Back
To Top
Fight Brews Over LNG Plants
Environmental groups plan
to contest a federal claim of authority over the siting of liquefied
natural gas terminals.
Goby William Wan, Times Staff
Writer
California officials and
environmental groups are gearing up to battle the federal government
over who has the authority to approve the construction of liquefied
natural gas terminals in the state. The fight has been brewing for months
but intensified Wednesday when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
declared itself the sole authority over the siting and construction
of LNG terminals, including a proposed facility in Long Beach.
Environmental groups, which
say the fuel is too volatile to use in urban areas, plan to meet in
Los Angeles on Monday to organize against FERC and proposed liquefied
gas terminals across the nation. About 25 groups, ranging from the Sierra
Club to the Ocean Conservancy, will meet to form a coalition to give
environmental groups a voice in the debate, said organizer Susan Jordan,
director of the California Coastal Protection Network. "It's California's
future we're talking about; we need to be in the driver's seat,"
Jordan said.
Also pitted against FERC
is the California Public Utilities Commission, which, like the federal
agency, insists that it has the authority to approve or reject LNG proposals
in the state. The utilities board must vote before appealing FERC's
ruling, but the state agency will almost certainly appeal, said PUC
Commissioner and former President Loretta Lynch. And should it fail
in the appeal, she added, commissioners will take their fight to the
federal courts. "PUC has an obligation, according to the state
Constitution, to fight any federal decree that preempts state law,"
Lynch said.
While their opponents mobilize,
FERC officials said their ruling had cleared the way for them to process
the application to build an LNG terminal in Long Beach, which was submitted
by Sound Energy Solutions, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi. "LNG is
a hot topic now," said Tamara Young-Allen, a spokeswoman for FERC,
noting that there are about 30 proposals across the country for liquefied
gas terminals, including three along the California coast. "Just
blink and there may be another one coming up." The fuel has been
widely used overseas for years, but recent rising gas prices and declining
domestic supplies have increased interest in LNG in the United States.
Part of the appeal is its
cost. Scientists have known for decades that natural gas shrinks to
a fraction of its original size when chilled at minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit
and converted from vapor to liquid. Companies can thus transport large
quantities of natural gas cheaply in ships. The liquid then can be turned
back into a gas at a terminal.
But opponents of the highly
flammable fuel worry that a malfunction or attack on a Long Beach liquefied
gas plant could kill scores of people with a single explosion. A blast
at an Algerian LNG plant in January killed 27. "If you have an
oil spill, you might hurt marine animals, but with LNG, there's potential
for human casualties," Jordan said. The danger that terrorists
might attack such a facility is addressed in the new book by former
antiterrorism chief Richard Clarke. He came under attack from the Bush
administration last week for his claims that it did not act swiftly
against terrorists. In "Against All Enemies," he alleges that,
months before Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda operatives entered the U.S. on
an LNG tanker in Boston Harbor. He also says that, on the morning of
9/11, federal officials worried that the liquefied natural gas terminal
in Everett, a Boston suburb, was a possible terrorist target. Concerns
over the safety of LNG scuttled plans for two proposals this month.
In Harpswell, Maine, residents voted March 9 against allowing a terminal
on their coast. On March 17, Calpine withdrew plans for a terminal in
Eureka, Calif., after hundreds of residents and environmentalists appeared
before the City Council to denounce an LNG plant as unwise and unsafe.
FERC officials, however, dispute the danger of LNG systems. "The
safety record is pretty good," Young-Allen said. "Prior to
the Algeria incident, we had not had a major incident in 44 years."
The fight in Long Beach,
however, may go on for months, and FERC and the PUC have a history of
bad blood. When Mitsubishi applied with FERC for the gas plant in January,
the PUC filed a 19-page protest, saying Mitsubishi also must apply with
the state. Mitsubishi countered with a 53-page response, arguing that
FERC's authority supersedes the state's.
Last Tuesday, the PUC filed
a 48-page rebuttal, asserting that it ‹ not the federal agency
‹ had jurisdiction. The next morning, FERC ruled against the PUC.
While the state and federal
agencies wrangled over jurisdiction, Long Beach officials jumped into
the argument Friday, claiming that local ‹ not state nor federal
‹ powers have the final say. "FERC approval is
meaningless without a lease from Long Beach," said Harbor Commission
President John Hancock.
Back
To Top
Matilija Dam Removal Project
Backed Up
Although demolition of the structure is years away, public officials
say they are seeing progress. By Lynne Barnes Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-vndam27mar27,1,425376.story
March 27, 2004
Amid much fanfare, Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt climbed behind the controls of a construction
crane in 2000 and personally removed a 16,000-pound chunk of concrete
from the face of Matilija Dam. It was the symbolic first step in razing
the dam that has been blamed for the decline of the endangered southern
steelhead trout and the depletion of sand at Ventura County beaches.
Babbitt vowed to make the
dam's removal a top priority. "I'm absolutely confident that in
a number of years I'll be back here as former secretary and a private
citizen to celebrate this dam being gone," he said at a news conference
attended by numerous dignitaries at the time.
Four years later, Babbitt
is no longer secretary and the 20-story-tall dam still stands in the
Ventura County backcountry, filled nearly to the top with mud and silt
with no clear date set for its removal.
But officials said they were
making progress.
After reviewing various methods,
state and local officials recently agreed on a plan to dismantle the
dam. And a spokesman for Sen. Barbara Boxer, long a proponent of the
demolition project, said this week that she planned to seek funding
for it in next year's federal budget.
If approved, the federal
government would pick up 65% of the cost, with local and state governments
responsible for the remainder.
Though money is tight, "there
are still certain projects that are worthy of this kind of funding,"
said Boxer spokesman David Sandretti. "We're talking about [wildlife]
habitat and flood-control issues, which is a public-safety concern.
For that and many other reasons, this is an important project."
If all goes well, officials
agree that work could begin by 2006. Once demolition commences on what
would be one of the largest dam removal projects in the country, it
would take another two years to complete.
Asked if he was worried about
the amount of time that has elapsed since the effort began, Jeff Pratt,
director of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, which
owns the dam, laughed.
"Heck, no," he
said. "We're moving at light speed. Remember, we're dealing with
the Army Corps of Engineers and federal funding."
The Army Corps, which would
oversee the project, is working on a feasibility study that must be
completed by the end of the year before the project can be authorized,
Pratt said.
Critics say the 145-foot
dam, built in 1947 for flood control, has outlived its usefulness. It
was designed to hold 5,000 acre-feet of water, but the buildup of silt
and mud behind the dam has reduced its storage capacity to 400 acre-feet.
The silt also blocks migration of endangered southern steelhead trout
and prevents sand from washing downstream to replenish Ventura County
beaches.
As the reservoir created
by the dam has filled with silt, the number of steelhead in the Ventura
River has dwindled to several hundred, Pratt said. "There's supposed
to be 5,000 to 7,000."
Even so, lawmakers aren't
worried about the pace of the project.
"There's a lot of things
you have to get worked out," said Ventura County Supervisor Steve
Bennett, whose district includes Matilija. "We have tons of design
work that needs to be done and permits that have to be coordinated&.
If they approve this, this would be the largest dam in the country"
to be demolished.
Although the costs of the
entire demolition project are high, actual removal of the dam would
only run about $12 million, said Paul Jenkin, environmental director
of the Surfrider Foundation and one of three speakers who attended a
meeting held in Oxnard this week to update the community on the status
of the project.
Much more costly are the
associated mitigation measures, which include moving 2 million cubic
yards of sediment and building a bypass channel around the Robles Diversion
Dam.
A spokesman for Rep. Elton
Gallegly, another longtime proponent of dumping the dam, also looked
at the big picture.
"The dam was built with
the idea that it was going to solve problems," Tom Pfeifer said.
"Well, it's caused problems. If you take it down, you want to make
sure it's not going to cause more problems."
The work is "right on
track," he said. "We knew this was going to be a very long
process when it started. This will be the model for how other dams are
decommissioned across the country."
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
Back
To Top
LNG Public Scoping Meeting
Update
Following is a summary of
the Cabrillo Port LNG Deepwater Port (DWP) - Joint EIS/EIR - Public
Scoping Meeting that took place on Tuesday, March
16, 2004 at the Malibu High School. There was an Open House from 4-6pm,
followed by a Public Meeting Session from 6:30-9:30pm.
Important Notes:
- Comments on the Joint
EIS/EIR must be received by 2pm (PST), March 31, 2004. Comments may
be sumbitted via fax, mail, or electronically at http://www.cabrilloport.ene.com
- This meeting did NOT cover
the proposed LNG terminal at Platform Grace by Crystal Energy. This
is a separate application filed for a LNG DWP on an existing platform
in the Ventura/Oxnard area and will go through the same public process
in the near future. Details - http://www.crystalenergyllc.com/index.html
Project Summary:
The US Department of Transportation
has delegated authority to issue a license to own, construct, and operate
a deepwater port to the US Coastguard and the Maritime Administration.
The applicant is Australian-based BHP Billiton LNG International, Inc.
The joint EIS/EIR will be prepared with the California State Lands Commission
(CSLC), because the applicant has also filed a CSLC land lease for subsea
pipelines through State waters to deliver natural gas to shore.
The LNG floating storage
and regasification unit (FSRU) would be permanently moored in Federal
waters approx. 13.9 miles offshore of Ventura County in 2,900 feet of
water. The LNG would be delivered by tanker to the FSRU, regasified,
and delivered onshore via two new 21.1 mile long, 24-inch diameter natural
gas pipelines laid on the ocean floor. The pipelines would come onshore
at Ormond Beach near Oxnard, Ventura County, and would ultimately be
connected with existing So Cal intrastate pipelines.
The submarine pipelines would
be buried from the 13-meter water depth approx. 0.3 miles offshore to
its landfall at Ormond Beach, and would be installed using the horizontal
directional drilling technique. The underground pipelines would pass
beneath Ormond Beach (east of the Reliant Ormond Beach Generating Station).
The onshore pipeline would continue through Ventura County into Los
Angeles County.
Maps of the proposed project
is available here: http://www.cabrilloport.ene.com/maps.htm
SURFRIDER / ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES
- Sand migration and scour
at Ormond Beach
- Impacts from HAZMAT spills
(including petroleum, LNG, hydrocarbons, fuels, lubricant, paints,
solvents, and sanitary waste).
- Crushing and displacement
of benthic communities during construction
- Effects of increases in
turbidity and changes in water quality, lights, and noise
- Access to the beach or
ocean
- Permanent and temporary
areas of restricted access on the beach and around the FSRU
- Effects of "cold
water" resulting from LNG release to marine species (Natural
Gas changes to liquid at minus 260 degrees fahrenheit)
- Effects of pipeline failures
on humans and marine and terrestrial ecosystems
- Impacts from construction
or operation on wetlands and other habitats, and sensitive species,
within the proposed pipeline landing and corridor
- Impacts from LNG or HAZMAT
spills, increases in turbidity, or unearthing of contaminated sediments
- Increases in shoreline
erosion during construction and operation
- Potential conflicts with
existing land uses, especially in coastal areas designated for recreational
purposes (Ormond Beach)
- Impacts on marine resources
off the coast of Oxnard, including the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary
Documents provided at the
public scoping meeting:
- Project Maps
- US Coastguard & Maritime
Administration & CSLC - Deepwater Port Act Fact Sheet
- US Coastguard & Maritime
Administration & CSLC - Proposed Action Fact Sheet
- US Secretary of Transportation
- Requirements for Issuance of License to Own, Construct, and Operate
a Deepwater Port
- US Dept of Homeland Security,
Dept. of Transportation, CSLC - Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation
of Draft EIS/EIR
- Cabrillo Port - Fact Sheets
on the Overall project, details on the Deepwater Port and LNG
- LNG Hazards Research -
Historical Summary - by Ronald P. Koopman, Ph D, P.E.
- Flowchart showing the
Opportunities for Public Comment during the Review Process under NEPA/CEQA
& the Deepwater Port Act
PROJECT DETAILS: http://www.cabrilloport.ene.com/default.htm
Back
To Top
USACE Blows up Embrey
Dam in Fredericksburg, VA
FREDERICKSBURG, Va. - When
the Army sets off explosives that punch a 100-foot hole in a concrete
dam today, it will be more a cause for celebration than concern.
The detonation of 650 pounds
of explosives will shake the ground and rattle windows. But it also
will destroy a large portion of Embrey Dam, restore the scenic Rappahannock
River to its natural state and give a boost to one of the East Coast's
most prized fish - the American shad.
The $10 million project is
being carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers - historically known
for obstructing rivers. But the dam removal is part of an environmental
strategy - nationally and in the Chesapeake Bay watershed - to create
healthier fish habitats by restoring the natural flow of rivers.
The Army has code-named the
operation "Noah Shiva," after the biblical figure associated
with flooding and the Hindu goddess empowered with giving new life.
Since the 1980s, conservation
groups have been working to bring down dams and put up fish ladders
or lifts over those that remain. Nationally, an estimated 600 dams have
been removed in recent years. Many, built as hydroelectric power sources,
have become outdated and face regulatory reviews that could require
fish passages, according to American Rivers, an environmental group.
Most of those removed have
been much smaller than Embrey Dam, which is 770 feet long and 22 feet
high. But Embrey is also outdated. Built in 1910, it was last used to
generate power in the 1960s and is widely seen as little more than an
obstacle in the river.
"The dam's getting old,
it isn't used for anything, and we didn't want it falling down at the
wrong time," says Fredericksburg Mayor William Beck.
Beck and others say the Embrey
Dam project has widespread support here because it will help bring back
the shad.
Shad, known for their bony
but tasty flesh, became casualties of overfishing and a proliferation
of dams over the past century that blocked them from spawning grounds.
They spend most of their lives at sea but return to fresh water in the
spring.
Until dams were built, the
fish could swim 12,000 miles in an average life span, traveling from
fall feeding grounds in the Gulf of Maine off New England to Binghamton,
N.Y., more than 300 miles upriver from the bay. They were once so plentiful
that farmers used them as fertilizer. But by the time Maryland imposed
a catch moratorium in 1980, they had almost vanished.
Today, the bay's shad are
rebounding, in large part because of a determined campaign to clear
away dams and other obstructions to their historic spawning runs.
Experts say dam removals
not only clear migratory routes for fish, but also replace still ponds
with swiftly moving water, creating a much cleaner habitat. Removing
dams in Maine and in Western states has meant the return of salmon,
another prized fish suffering from loss of spawning habitat, environmentalists
say.
"I think shad are going
to come back as a major sports fish," says Michael Fritz, living-resources
coordinator for the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program.
Fritz says the Embrey dam
project fits a pattern for the Chesapeake Bay watershed, where over
the past decade some 1,350 miles of waterways have been cleared of dams
and other obstructions. Most dams have been removed with backhoes, though
- making the project on the Rappahannock the first of its kind.
John Tippett, executive director
of the Friends of the Rappahannock, says that removing the Embrey would
open up 700 miles of the river and its tributaries to shad and other
migratory fish, such as the blueback herring and the American eel.
"You could safely say
there's two decades of advocacy behind this," says Tippett, who
is credited with persuading Virginia Sen. John W. Warner to back the
project during a 1996 canoe trip.
The project also has the
backing of many in this town of 20,000, perhaps best known for its Civil
War historic sites and antiques shops and, increasingly, as a Washington
suburb.
The river frames the town's
northern border, and the dam is part of its history.
Images of it abound: Beck's
antiques shop has a map in the window showing where restricted areas
and viewing stands will be set up.
In City Hall, a photograph
of the dam decorates the coffee mug used by David King, a city engineer.
In the lobby, a wooden block plucked out of the river, part of a 19th-century
"crib" dam built 60 years before Embrey, is on display.
Few here are mourning the
dam's demise. Since it stopped generating power, Embrey has been little
more than an attraction - and a hazard - for sightseers and schoolchildren.
No one seems worried about damages from the blast.
"They wouldn't be doing
it if they thought it was a danger to anything," says Andy Callander,
22, a waiter, who fished near the dam as a teen-ager.
Crowds at the noontime blast
today will be kept 1,000 yards from the explosion site. The 100-foot
hole being created is on the south side of the river near Fredericksburg.
City officials have urged residents to keep pets at home and promised
to provide ear plugs.
Water is expected to rise
- temporarily - only 2 to 3 feet, flooding little more than a few riverbanks
and a deserted island downstream.
A pair of Army scientists
predict no damage to the few houses that lie within 1,000 yards of the
blast site, says Brian Rheinhart, the corp's project manager.
He says the explosive will
be set off in a series of 10 shots, sequentially fired 25 milliseconds
apart - quick enough to sound like one big blast. The charges will be
planted inside holes carved into 10 concrete supports or "bays"
by divers and demolition experts from Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada
and the Army's Fort Eustis, Va.
Rheinhart says the explosives
may not completely bring down the 100-foot portion of the dam where
they are planted - an upper panel of concrete may remain stretched over
the damaged structure. But the blast will punch a hole large enough
to let the water and fish begin to flow through, he says.
Boaters will be kept out
of the area while debris is cleared, a project that won't be completed
until early 2006, Rheinhart says.
Late last week, city officials
were searching for an old-fashioned dynamite plunger for Warner to use
to set off the explosions.
Tippett expects shad to begin
reappearing in the Rappahannock as early as this spring. Volunteers
began releasing them into the Rappahannock with the help of Virginia
game officials about four years ago, he says.
"I was out there for
that. It was a lot of fun," says Ron Woodson, a Rappahannock River
guide and helicopter mechanic at Fort Belvoir, Va. Woodson, in a brief
tour of the Rappahannock last week, says he is confident the shad will
return. Fish have returned to other rivers where dams have been removed,
he notes.
"I think it's going
to improve fishing a lot," he says.
Back
To Top
Seawalls put one of state's
great assets at risk
Sunday, February, 22, 2004
By Chad Nelsen
Environmental director, Surfrider Foundation
California is a beach state.
Beach-related commerce contributes $14 billion per year to California's
economy. Beaches are the single most popular recreational destination
for Californians themselves. Beaches are also an important habitat for
birds, marine mammals, grunion and other species. More than just an
economic engine, this natural resource is a defining element of Gov.
Schwarzenegger's "golden dream by the sea." Unfortunately,
our management of California's beaches has put this precious resource
at risk because of our archaic response to beach erosion: the construction
of seawalls.
Seawalls have been a nemesis
for a long time. As early as the 1900s, states on the East Coast and
in the Gulf lost beaches as a result of seawall construction. Some states
such as Oregon, Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina learned from
these lessons and largely prohibited the construction of seawalls.
Here in California, we acknowledged
the problem in 1976 with the passage of the California Coastal Act,
which specifies, "New development shall [not] in any way require
the construction of shoreline protective devices."
Of California's 1,100 miles
of coastline, approximately 86 percent of it is eroding. Approximately
100 miles of the California coast have been armored by seawalls. Conflicting
policies within the California Coastal Act have inhibited the development
of a comprehensive policy on coastal erosion or protection of the sand
supply on public beaches. As a result, the proliferation of seawalls
in California continues.
It is ironic that Harold
Johnson ["The new enemy: seawalls," California Focus, Feb.
12] accuses those opposed to seawall construction of having soggy arguments,
given that he chooses to ignore many of the impacts to the beach resulting
from the construction of seawalls. Mr. Johnson attempts to refute the
concept of active erosion, which is the ability for the shoreline structure
to induce or enhance erosion. His discussion ignores other impacts.
There are three notable impacts
to beaches from seawall construction that Mr. Johnson fails to discuss:
placement loss, impoundment loss and passive erosion. Placement loss
is the loss of the sandy beach under the footprint of the structure.
Impoundment is the loss of sand that would naturally be supplied to
the beach from coastal erosion that is prevented by the seawall. The
third negative impact, and the most consequential, is passive erosion.
Passive erosion is described
by UC Santa Cruz professor Gary Griggs as follows:
"Wherever a hard structure
is built along a shoreline undergoing long-term net erosion, the shoreline
will eventually migrate landward beyond the structure. The effect of
this migration will be the gradual loss of beach in front of the seawall
or revetment as the water deepens and the shoreface moves landward.
While private structures may be temporarily saved, the public beach
is lost. This process of passive erosion appears to be a generally agreed
upon result of fixing the position of the shoreline on an otherwise
eroding stretch of coast, and is independent of the type of seawall
constructed."
Finally, Mr. Johnson proceeds
to challenge the impacts of seawalls on surfing. As an organization
with a membership of tens of thousands of surfers who are out surfing
every nook and cranny of the California coast every day, we feel uniquely
qualified to discuss the impacts of seawalls on surfing. Not only does
backwash off seawalls interfere with surfing conditions, it can create
a dangerous situation for all beachgoers.
Fortunately, there are environmentally
superior alternatives to shoreline armoring, such as: assisting threatened
properties through funding and public acquisition; restoring shoreline
sand supplies; releasing trapped sediments through dam removals and
sand bypassing; restricting activities that can cause bluff collapse;
and ensuring adequate development setbacks from eroding areas. These
measures will help ensure that California's largest economic engine
and favorite place to recreate, the beach, remains healthy and accessible
for future generations.
Find out more about Surfrider's
position on seawalls, and their effect on California's coasts at: http://www.beach.com/stateofthebeach/6-state/shoreline_structures.asp?state=
CA