EVENT: Aberdeen hearing for proposed oil by rail terminals 

Thursday (10/8) – 

Aberdeen, WA – Hundreds of concerned Washington residents will gather at the official DEIS public hearing for two of the proposed crude oil by rail terminals in Grays Harbor, Washington. Local Tribal leaders, elected officials, business owners, faith leaders, and community members will voice concerns about the proposals, particularly on the risks from oil trains and spills from oil tankers.

Who:
Fawn Sharp, President, Quinault Indian Nation
Alan Richrod, Aberdeen City Council Member
Rev. Katherine Gardner, Hoquiam United Methodist Church
Dr. Bruce Amundson, family practice doctor and president of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility
Larry Thevik, WA Dungeness Crab Fisherman Association

With special performances by Quinault Indian Nation Drummers and Dusty Rhodes.

When/Where:
Thursday, October 8th; Press conference and rally at 5 pm
D & R Theater, 205 South I St, Aberdeen
Hearing from 1:30 to 4:30 pm (session 1) and 6 to 9 pm (session 2)

***ATTENTION ASSIGNMENT EDITORS: GREAT VISUALS!***
Large, diverse group wearing red; signs about oil trains and oil spills; musical performance

We will be live tweeting the hearing – follow along at @StandUpToOil, #AberdeenOilHearing and  #oiltrains.

The Aberdeen hearing is the second in a series of two hearings (the first was in Elma on October 1st) on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for two of the three proposed crude oil by rail terminals in Grays Harbor, Washington by the Westway and Imperium companies. There are currently five proposals for oil terminals in Washington, as well as a proposal by Shell Refinery in Anacortes to expand their operation to increase their oil by rail capacity.


###

STAND UP TO OIL is a growing coalition of groups opposed to new oil terminals and an increase in oil transport through the Northwest, while working to improve safety measures for oil currently traveling through the region. Learn more at Standuptooil.org.

Kerry McHugh | Communications Director

Washington Environmental Council
phone 206.631.2605| mobile 206.902.7555
email kerry@wecprotects.org | web www.wecprotects.org
office 1402 Third Avenue | Suite 1400 | Seattle, WA 98101

The Impacts of a Grays Harbor Oil Spill, in 13 Slides – Siteline

Huge money from Big Oil pollutes our political system in Washington State to gain access to exporting oil to China and Japan, a move that the Republican Congress is trying to get done, but can’t with Obama in power. The oil companies are trying to push through three large oil terminals for Grays Harbor. Here’s an overview, by Siteline of what that could mean. Want to take action on this? Contact our two state representatives for the Peninsula (or yours whereever you live) and our one State Senator (who is from the Aberdeen Hoquim area). There contact info is listed on the left side of my blog front page.

How Big Oil jeopardizes Washington coastal tourism and the Quinault Nation.

Three large oil terminals proposed for Grays Harbor could undermine the region’s economy and local culture. That’s the takeaway from two recent economic analyses: first, a study on coastal recreation in Washington from the Surfrider Foundation and marine technology firm Point 97; then, Economic Impacts of Crude Oil Transportation on the Quinault Indian Nation and the Local Economy, published by economic consulting firm Resource Dimensions.

A lot more on this at Siteline.

http://daily.sightline.org/2015/09/17/the-impacts-of-a-grays-harbor-oil-spill-in-13-slides/?utm_source=Sightline%20Institute&utm_medium=web-email&utm_campaign=Sightline%20News%20Selections

Siteline is one of my must read daily feeds. If you end up enjoying this article, join me in donating anything to their cause. Even $5 to $10.

Draft Environmental Review Released For Oil Terminals On Washington Coast – KUOW

Hoquim and Aberdeen ports are being slated for crude oil shipments by possible building of oil shipment facilities for trains coming from the Bakken fields in North Dakota. The plan is for 1178 more oil trains and 638 more oil tankers to be added to the Gray’s Harbor area a year. These trains would be carrying huge quantities of highly flammable crude, much the same as the oil that destroyed the Canadian town of Lac-Mégantic. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster for more on that). The plan is for up to 1188 oil trains per year coming into the area. Additionally, the Draft EIS talks about significant impact to the Quinault Tribal fisheries in the area, as the tribe will not be able to fish while boats are present, which essentially is all the time. As stated in the Draft EIS: “Tribal members would not be able to fish when ships or barges are moving through the area.” I guess it’s up to the Tribe to determine whether this particular fishery is worth fighting for, or whether there are other areas they can fish that are less impacted. It will be interesting to see what the Tribe has to say on this.

Also of interest is the trade off that the cities see in adding this highly polluting industry to their area. We all know that Hoquim and Aberdeen have been one of the poorest locations in the State, ever since the collapse of the logging industry due to the disastrous federal policies of allowing raw logs to be shipped to Japan in the 1980s. This  turned what had been an industry that was highly functioning with extraction and higher value processing jobs into a third world country where only cutting and transport of logs was done, wiping out mills across the area in short order. The Federal government green light to massive cutting with no concerns of market conditions or any need for local mills,  led to a short lived boom until the resources were gone. Meanwhile the industry blamed environmental organizations for suing to stop the destruction of all remaining forests to save what little habitat was being left due to a lack of oversight and planning by the Federal Government.

And so the proposal is to continue to eat away at locations where salmon can be fished and create a very large possible oil spill concern, one that not only would impact the Gray’s Harbor area but also the entire Washington and Oregon coast, if one of these vessels sank during a large storm due to mechanical failure. The trade off is to give much needed jobs to at least some of the people in the Gray’s Harbor area. How badly is this oil needed with the downturn in the Chinese economy, and other issues? Is the trade off of possible destruction of our recreational use of the Pacific Coast worth it to support the oil industry and it’s desire to sell their product to China and Japan? You can read and comment on the draft EIS if you wish at the link below.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/graysharbor/terminals.html

KUOW summary story:

The Washington State Department of Ecology has just released its draft environmental review of two proposed oil terminals on the Washington coast. A third proposed terminal has not yet begun the environmental review process. The terminals could be built in Grays Harbor, near Aberdeen, doubling current vessel and train traffic levels there. (KUOW)

http://kuow.org/post/draft-environmental-review-released-oil-terminals-washington-coast

Navy defends electronic warfare training project in Pacific Beach public meeting – PDN

Related news on the Navy’s expansion of electronic warfare testing.

The town with the most direct impact from the Navy’s proposal to expand electronic warfare training in Olympic National Forest had its first public meeting on the plan this week. More than 175 residents of Pacific Beach in Grays Harbor County attended the Wednesday night meeting, with many voicing opposition. A five-person team from the Navy — the U.S. Forest Service declined an invitation to attend — defended the military agency’s finding in August that the project would have no significant environmental impact. Angelo Bruscas reports. (North Coast News)

http://peninsuladailynews.com/article/20141121/NEWS/311219979/navy-defends-electronic-warfare-training-project-in-pacific-beach

%d bloggers like this: