Posts Tagged ‘Climate Change’


Putting Fracked Gas Infrastructure on Kate Brown’s Agenda


The third resurrection of the zombie pipeline is upon us. Like the premise for an 80s horror film, the Jordan Cove Energy Project proposal slated for southwest Oregon makes little sense, yet it just won’t seem to be forgotten.  

First proposed in 2004, the 232-mile Pacific Connector LNG pipeline and accompanying Jordan Cove liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal have been met with over a decade of grassroots resistance from concerned citizens, landowners faced with eminent domain, local tribes, politicians and environmentalists.

While the gas export project has been rejected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) twice since its initial proposal, the project proponent, Canada-based Veresen, has filed again for reconsideration. Many are worried about the possibility of it being approved this time around, with the pro-business Trump administration at the helm.

These increased concerns have motivated communities around the state into more concerted action. In this spirit of action, I joined the Cascadia Wildlands team on a trip to Salem to offer public comment at the Oregon State Land Board meeting. While LNG was not officially on the State Land Board’s agenda, the meeting provided the perfect opportunity to get in the room with Governor Kate Brown (who has the power to end this recurring nightmare once and for all) and get our message heard.

Waking up early after a long night of studying isn’t always the most appealing prospect, even to do something as important as fight an immoral and unsafe pipeline. After squeezing in an extra hour of sleep on the drive up to the Capitol, I straightened my rumpled clothing (I was wearing a button up for added effect) and started preparing to make my first-ever public comment.

I immediately felt out of place upon entering the halls of the Department of State Lands building, surrounded by legislators and bureaucrats dressed to the nines in suits and ties, and well equipped with patent leather briefcases. After some hesitation and a good bit of milling around, I signed my name on the list to comment, feeling a healthy dose of apprehension about speaking directly to Governor Brown.

The meeting began with the rap of a gavel and Brown’s acknowledgement of the retirement of a long-time civil servant, after which she suggested that public comment be made before the bulk of the meeting take place. At this point, I was frantically reading over the statement prepared by Cascadia Wildlands’ Grassroots Organizer and trying to draft one of my own before taking to the podium.

Conveniently, the proposed project offers no shortage of potential critiques, ranging from environmental hazards, safety considerations and environmental justice concerns.  At the forefront are the 400 waterways this pipeline would cross (and surely pollute), the 95-ft. wide clearcut that pipeline construction would require through public and private land, and the fact that, if built, the project would become the number one climate polluter in the state of Oregon. All of this isn’t to mention the concerns of many indigenous peoples in Southern Oregon, who claim that the pipeline will unearth burial grounds and damage important cultural sights.

There is also the potential for an explosive leak, which could ignite forest fires, damage homes and endanger lives. Disaster associated with a cataclysmic earthquake anticipated off of Oregon any day is also of major concern. The LNG facility would be built in the tsunami inundation zone on the spit in Coos Bay where the ocean meets land…

Thankfully I managed to give comment without incident, emphasizing the importance of Brown recognizing tribal concerns about the project while masking the nervous tremor in my voice.

After we finished giving our comments, the meeting resumed, only to be interrupted seconds later by a group of folks across the room. The din of noise makers and chanting drowned out Brown’s incredulous objections, and the protesters unfurled a banner that read “Climate Leaders Don’t Build Pipelines: Stop Jordan Cove.” The protestors read statements over Brown’s frustrated calls for silence, while the police liaison negotiated for time with the two cops that immediately moved to escort them out. Three of the protestors had the opportunity to speak before the group was lead out by the police, mentioning indigenous protest, safety concerns, and climate justice in their comments. The meeting proceeded with an awkward silence after the last of the protestors had left.

While Brown has continued to posture herself as a “climate leader,” she has remained unwilling to pull the plug on the Pacific Connector Pipeline and Jordan Cove Energy Project. We must keep the heat on her.

We can’t let Kate Brown forget that she is accountable to the will of her constituents. More actions like the recent one in Salem will be imperative in maintaining pressure on Brown, especially as the pipeline begins to rear its ugly head for a (hopefully) final showdown.

Kate Brown’s Contact Information:

Office of the Governor

900 Court Street, Suite 254

Salem, OR 97301-4047

Phone: 503-378-4582



Living in the Age of Returns and Firsts


By Maya Rommwatt, Communications and Development Intern

On February 13th, comments are due to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the Jordan Cove LNG project.  The potentially catastrophic project includes both a pipeline and a terminal for the purpose of transporting fracked natural gas and liquefying it for export to Asia.  Similar to other proposals to transport gas and coal for the purposes of export, this project refuses to consider the impacts it will have on climate change, which now stands between us, and a livable future.

We’re living in an age of returns and firsts.  Just recently, photos confirmed the presence of an extremely rare Sierra Nevada red fox in Yosemite National Park.  There have been no sightings of the elusive creature there for ninety-nine years.  And closer to home, we learned of activity of what appears to be another one or two wolves near Crater Lake, in addition to the burgeoning Rogue Pack. I never thought I would be able to speak of Western Oregon wolves, and yet here they are, pups and all. 

But as this encouraging story unfolds, we make plans for pipelines and exports that will guarantee a future governed by catastrophic climate change.  That future has no room for recovering species.  This, as the EPA announces Canadian tar sands will only be developed if the Keystone pipeline is built, now that oil prices have dropped.  While the Keystone pipeline may soon be a receding threat, the more local Jordan Cove project is a wholly different beast.  The project would assure the export of inefficient fracked natural gas for decades to come, and once the Boardman coal plant shuts down, it will be Oregon’s biggest polluter.  This doesn’t even factor in the emissions associated with obtaining the natural gas, nor does it consider the burning of the gas by its consumers in Asia.  And yet, Oregon moves closer and closer to the LNG terminal.  We have not even begun to ask what a future with the project might look like.  If an accident were to happen with this project, say a spill, we taxpayers would likely be forced to help foot the cleanup bill, as the history of corporate settlements shows (corporations forced to pay punitive damages often deduct their settlement costs from their taxes).Two pups from the Rogue Pack, June 2014

The Jordon Cove LNG project is a disaster we can’t afford on a number of levels.  It’s foolish to think we can both recover species and build the natural gas pipeline.  Will we choose the path to recovery and growth, returns and firsts?  Or will we choose the path of negligence and loss?  Help us show the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission we stand on the right side of history, that we respect other species, and are not working in opposition to them.  We have not spent countless hours and resources building a narrative with a future, only to wash it away so a Canadian corporation can make a profit at our expense and the expense of OR-7 and the Rogue pack, the wolverine, and the remaining ancient carbon-storing forests of the Pacific Northwest. No LNG Rally, photo courtesy of Francis Eatherington

Now is the time to submit our comments; we have until noon on Friday the 13th for online comments or postmarked mailed comments.  If you haven’t already done so, you can submit your comments beginning here.


More information on the pipeline can be found here.


Photo Credits: Top left, Two pups from the Rogue Pack, June 2014. (Photo by ODFW).  Bottom right, No LNG protest. (Photo courtesy Francis Eatherington).                              






Speak Up to FERC about LNG and Pipeline Concerns in Oregon

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is holding a series of public hearings to listen to public comment on the proposed Coos Bay Liquefied Natural Gas export facility and the associated 230-mile pipeline.  At No LNG Signissue are the environmental impacts of this project including climate effects, water pollution from fracking and damage to forest habitats as well as the economic impacts taking of land through eminent domain, foreign company exploitation of public resources and the deleterious effects of providing inexpensive fossil-fuels to competing economies.  There is much to discuss with FERC. 

Organizing and Informational Meeting 

Douglas County citizens are getting together to share information on this project. Find out what you need to know about fossil fuel exports through Oregon by foreign energy companies. The event is free and open to the public. This meeting is organized by Pipeline Awareness Southern Oregon, South Umpqua Rural Community Partnership, Douglas County Global Warming Coalition, Umpqua Watersheds, Landowners United, and Cascadia Wildlands. 

Where: Ford Room, Roseburg Public Library, Roseburg, Oregon
When: December 1 at 6:30PM (Call 541-860-8307 for details)

LNG Public Meetings Alert

Where: Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon
When: December 9, 6:00 to 9:00 PM

Where: Seven-Feathers Convention Center, Canyonville
When: December 10, 6:00 to 9:00 PM

To submit DEIS comments, please click here.


Thermal Damns and the Need for Angry, Active Anglers

Bob Ferris
Recently I posted something on Facebook about the peril faced by marine fish species in British Columbia due drift creekto record ocean temperatures (see Record North Pacific Temperatures Threatening B.C. Marine Species) and a new friend reposted it with a query about what she called “thermal damns.” It was a classic Freudian slip, but a really elegant one as these too-warm spots in rivers and streams (thermal dams) that block fish passage do act as physiological dams and they do start the process of damning us in Cascadia to a future likely bereft of ocean running salmonids—mainly salmon and steelhead.  
I talked about this issue recently with Mike Finley of the Turner Foundation and they are working with the Wild Salmon Center to preserve salmon runs in Kamchatka so that when all this fecal matter hits the air moving appliance, as well as the associated ocean acidification, that we have some refugia for salmon so that seed populations would be available post eastern Pacific salmon collapse for repopulation.  And while I thought this visionary, commendable and necessary, the idea that this thinking and action were necessary made me angry.  I am not sure that I am comfortable with just accepting that we are "thermally damned."
“EPA has an extensive track record of twisting the science to justify their actions,” Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), head of the House Science Committee in Science Insider
This mood of mine was not improved by the fossil-fuel-funded-fools in the House of Representatives that passed bills that would hamper the US Environmental Protection Agency's use of science on climate change.  (No, this is not a story in the Onion.)  Sure…why we would want the agency that looks after our well-being and that of our supporting ecosystems to be guided by the best science?  But it was a story that cruised through like a coal-ladened freight train while most of the US was focused on the latest celebrity break-up or cute cat video.  
fly fishing for assassins
I am not completely sure why, but this makes me think of that utterly silly scene in that absolutely silly, but visually pleasing movie, Salmon Fishing in Yemen, where the character played by Ewan McGregor suddenly spies a gun-wielding assassin and realizes that he holds an effective weapon—his Spey rod (see review where I got the photo here, if you feel you are missing something).  He, in that special moment of time, became a bug-flinging super hero.  For all of the reasons cited above we need some fly fishing super heroes now to help us with our thermal damning issues.  And this really begs the question: When are we as anglers going to understand that we need to be our own super heroes in this regard and that we are already holding an effective weapon in our hands through our collective political power?  
“If you got a politician who's running for office who thinks he is smarter than 98 percent of the world’s climate scientists—they’re crooks or they’re dumbasses”  Yvon Chouinard 
The good news is that anglers are starting to understand the need for action and long-time heroes like Patagonia founder and environmental funder Yvon Chouinard are turning up the volume on climate change.  But others are emerging also like those joining Yvon in the below video clip.  We very much need more of this.

At the close of the above video, there is a quote by Albert Einstein: Those who have the privilege to know, have the duty to act.  Likewise those who enjoy fishing—particularly in Cascadia—need to grasp that angling is part casting and catching but also must involve protecting and enhancing habitats as well as stewardship of our political system.  Certainly this means taking action on pressing issues like the proposed Coos Bay LNG export terminal that will enable more greenhouse gas emissions in the US and China.  But it also means protecting important salmon habitat in Oregon's Elliott State Forest or Alaska's Tongass, taking a stand against suction dredge mining in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, questioning the use of forestry herbicides and making sure that any changes to how the O&C Lands in Oregon are managed protects rather than reduces stream-side buffers.  
So as you are pushing yourself back from the Thanksgiving table this coming week, take some time to be an angry, active angler.  Please get engaged in these issues and make sure to support those organizations that are carrying on this important fight.  Investing in all the gear out there will do little good unless you also invest in those actions and entities that help keep fish coming back to our rivers and streams.  

A Trip to Washington DC

By Francis Eatherington

francis in DC

During the week of June 16, representatives of Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild, and KS Wild traveled to Washington DC to discuss two bills, one from Senator Wyden and one from Representative DeFazio. Both mandate an increase of logging on western Oregon BLM lands.
We had over 21 meetings with agency staff, senators and representatives. We pointed out that if laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are weakened in Oregon (as both the Wyden and DeFazio bills propose) it sets a precedent nation-wide.
Both bills claim western Oregon BLM districts are in litigation “gridlock” because of environmental troublemakers. It’s not true. There is no gridlock. In December 2013 the BLM released information going back 6 years showing the BLM has been meeting its timber targets when averaged over all western Oregon districts. For instance, in 2012, the timber target for the 6 BLM districts with O&C land was 203 mmbf (million board feet). The exceeded that by offering 205.4 mmbf of mostly non-controversial, non-litigated timber sales. It is hyperbole to call this “gridlock.” Instead, the problem is that the BLM Districts with dryer forests (Medford and Roseburg) haven’t been able to meet their targets, which were set too high. But that is made up by the BLM districts with wetter forests (Coos Bay, Salem and Eugene) that have exceeded their target volume.
The Oregon congressional delegation is being pressured by counties who have such low tax revenue (and low tax rates) that they want to return to the days when they reaped in a huge share of BLM logging revenue.
We pointed out that reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools legislation would solve that problem on the federal level, while we recognized that state and county governments need to address the funding crises at local levels. For instance, the large percentage of private land in Oregon owned by the timber industry has a far lower tax rate than rural families pay. And if a timber corporation owns more than 5,000 acres, they pay even less taxes. Added to those tax gifts is the fact that industry has no fees on the large amount of raw-log exports from Oregon, unlike the payments required from industry in California and Washington State on raw-log exports.
On our last day in DC we discussed with legislators our concerns over exporting Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Veresen, a Canadian corporation, wants to use southern Oregon to export fracked gas to Asia. Veresen claims that if they can’t export, they will have to stop fracking. They want to take property from over 300 Oregonians for a pipeline to Coos Bay to feed a proposed LNG terminal in a tsunami and earthquake subduction zone.
While the staff of Senator Wyden seemed concerned when they met with us, they could offer no explanation to Senator Wyden’s statements that he “applauds” this project. They will get back to us on if he meant he applauds condemning his constituents lands, or he just applauds the release of huge amounts of methane in fracking, as methane is 100 times more polluting than coal when released unburned into the atmosphere. I’ll be sure to let you when they get back to us.

The Pteropod in the Coal Mind

By Bob Ferris
The below video link from a Seattle Times article is important.pteropod-limacina-helicina_med
Now you might not have heard of pteropods before, but you have certainly heard of the relationship between canaries and coal miners. Pteropods are the canaries of our Cascadian oceans.  They are sensitive to acid because of their thin shells and they are telling us that we need to end or seriously curtail smokestack and tail pipe emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (NOx) and sulfur (SOx) because this is affecting the bottom of a food chain that ultimately includes us.  
If you or someone you know has trouble grasping the concept of climate change or our peril from accelerating carbon and other emissions from this push to make the Pacific Northwest the carbon (i.e., coal, tar sand, oil shale, LNG and wood) export capital of North America, please introduce them to the graceful and transparent pteropods who are dissolving and dying to send us a message.



Pop Go the Weasel Words

By Bob FerrisPine marten
When my wife and I lived in Santa Barbara our house was up a brushy canyon and we had trouble getting fire insurance.  The real estate agent joked about an old saw in the area that goes something like this: It is not “if” your house is going to burn in Santa Barbara but “when.”  
This saying is common in the area and our house—after we sold it and left Santa Barbara—did in fact burn to the ground during a canyon fire.  Not only that, but it would have burned a second time had it been rebuilt.  So certainly there was some truth in the saying, but is it too strong considering that some houses do not burn in Santa Barbara?  Perhaps a more cautionary statement with caveats is in order including the use of so-called weasel words?
“The key is that suction dredging represents a chronic unnatural disturbance of natural habitats that are already likely to be stressed by other factors and can therefore have a negative impact on fishes that use the reach being dredged.” Dr. Peter B. Moyle 
Every scientist who has ever written a recommendation or a report is familiar with the term “weasel words.”  Those are the words that we have been trained to use.  We use them because we have been aggressively taught the necessity to be “right” much more often than we are “wrong.” In this context, we also are all painfully aware that when we test something and are 95% sure that it works that way, 5% of the time it will not.  Pop go the weasel words and we preload our statements with this uncertainty.  
“Timber harvesting could possibly cause what is likely an inevitable event to occur sooner.” Noel Wolff, a hydrologist who worked for Washington State writing about the timber harvest above the deadly landslide on the Snohomish River in Washington in the Seattle Times

Oso Slide

But those who interpret “may” as “won’t” or “could” as “will not,” do so at great peril (see AP photo of the Oso, Washington mudslide at left).  This becomes even more problematic when we deal with complex, multi-variant natural systems where uncertainty and confusion are accounted for with even more cautious language and phrasing.
Interestingly, the level of complexity and the level of consequence often track one another.  Unfortunately, the financial rewards of inaction also track both these measures too.  So the fiscal benefits to the fossil-fuel industry, timber companies, livestock interests and suction dredgers for actively clouding the science on climate change, geological stability, predator-prey relationships and disturbing rivers are incentivized.  Essentially the complexity provides both opportunities and shelter for those wanting to invest profitably in misinformation.  
Original Language: "Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change."
Modified Language: "Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change."
Weasel words come from this caution, but they are also frequently injected into documents for political and economic reasons too (see language changes above from 2002 report on climate change).  Climate change policy documents in this country are rife with statements that are altered not by the scientists themselves but by those who edit or provide comments in order to dampen the call for action.  
Likewise, many of these documents and the cautions of scientists are removed via the consensus process that is sometimes insisted on by special interests groups.  A good example of this is to compare habitat comments and recommendations relating to forestry and grazing practices in a document prepared by black-tail deer biologists and one completed under a consensus process that included timber and livestock interests in Oregon.   
The “take home” messages here are to listen carefully to what scientists say and why.  The insurance industry has done this well and as a consequence was one of the first industries to recognize the perils of climate change.  Some sportsmen groups and hunters are starting to understand that prey species are more often limited by habitat and land management regimes than by predators.  And legislators in Maine recently listened to the message delivered by scientists and will no longer allow suction dredging in Class AA rivers occupied by important salmon and trout species.  Keeping it wild means paying attention to the science–weasel words and all–and letting that point both to peril and also opportunities to make the world a little wilder.

Cascadia Wildlands Files 60 Day Notice on Behalf of Threatened Bull Trout

For Immediate Release Bull trout copy
September 5, 2013

Nick Cady, Legal Director 541-434-1463 

Cascadia Wildlands to US Forest Service—18 Years is Too Long to Wait for Action on Bull Trout

Eugene, OR—Cascadia Wildlands filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management over their failure to consult and  consider the impacts of projects and actions on the critical habitat of federally threatened Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) throughout its range in the Pacific Northwest.  

“As a fish that requires cold, clean water and complex aquatic structures, the presence or absence of Bull Trout in our streams and waterways is a true indication of whether or not we are fulfilling our obligation to protect, maintain and enhance our aquatic heritage,” said Nick Cady Cascadia’s Legal Director. “ The current management plans for Bull Trout were put into place in the 1990’s and were only supposed to serve as interim guidance for 18 months. We have been waiting 18 years for the Federal government to release management plans for this important and sensitive fish.”

According to the Endangered Species Act,  agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service are required to consider the impacts of projects and actions such as their forest plans on listed species and their critical habitats.  In September of 2010, the US Fish and Wildlife Service after a long legal battle finally designated critical habitat for the species across the Pacific Northwest.  However, the Forest Service has failed to update its 18-year-old conservation plan for the species and ensure that agency actions do not destroy or adversely modify these areas critical to the species persistence.

Bull Trout are native to North America.  In the US they are found in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, western Montana and a single river in northern Nevada.  They have been likely extirpated in their historic range in northern California.  

Bull trout have strict habitat requirements and need cold water (below 55 °F or 13 °C), clean gravel beds, plentiful cover such as downed timber and undercut banks, and large systems of intact waterways for their spawning migrations.  As a result, they prefer cold lakes, deep pools in rivers and high mountain streams. Bull trout occasionally visit ocean habitats and have been known to use coastal waters to migrate from one river to another.

“Bull Trout are the “canaries in the coal mine” for aquatic ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest,” said Bob Ferris Executive Director of Cascadia Wildlands. “If we fail to respond to monitoring information and make the adjustments dictated by climate change, we are ignoring vital feedback about our land and resource management practices.”  



Op-ed: Climate Crisis Worsens While We Wait for Action

Lionel Richie was burning up the pop charts. Americans were freaking out over the release of “New Coke.” And few were giving much thought to climate change. But 1985 was the last year our planet enjoyed an average-temperature month.
According to federal scientists, no one under age 27 has ever experienced a month in which the global temperature wasn’t above the 20th century average.
Four years ago, just after President Obama was first sworn in, I, along with University of Oregon law professor Mary Wood, outlined in these pages why the new president could and should quickly address climate change, even in the absence of congressional action.
Now, in the wake of the president’s strong climate statements at his second inauguration, these arguments are more compelling than ever. And the problem has only gotten worse.
While temperatures in the United States have only risen 1.5 degrees thus far, a new federal report suggests that by the end of the century, temperatures could rise by as much as 10 degrees if the climate crisis is left unchecked.
Scientists tell us this dramatic change to our climate will increase the risk of freak storms, damaging droughts and record heat waves. Today’s extreme weather may well be surpassed by nasty surprises we can’t yet even imagine. If we’re already experiencing a “climate on steroids,” as some scientists have suggested, we are fast working our way toward something like a climate on methamphetamine.
While everyone with their head out of the sand knows we have a big problem, some have the mistaken idea that our dysfunctional Congress leaves our nation unable to respond to this threat.
The truth is Congress has already given the president a great deal of authority to address this problem — authority that so far he has not used as ambitiously as he must. The president could significantly reduce carbon emissions in the next four years simply by fully implementing the Clean Air Act, and Congress doesn’t have to lift a finger.
The Eugene City Council recognized these facts last July with its vote to join dozens of “Clean Air Cities” representing tens of millions of people — all calling on President Obama to use the Clean Air Act to its fullest extent to address climate disruption.
It is true that the Obama administration has begun to use the Clean Air Act in the climate fight. Unfortunately, the application has been slow and timid.
Regulations on carbon emissions from new power plants, for example, did not go nearly as far as they could have and still are not finalized. Fuel standards for new passenger vehicles, while better than nothing, lock us for years into gas mileage ratings that are and will remain inferior to those in Europe, Japan and China.
These tentative actions just scratch the surface of what is possible — and what is needed. Obama has the authority, for example, to write rules limiting emissions from existing power plants, the nation’s single largest source of climate-disrupting gases, but he has not said whether his administration will do so in his second term.
The administration has even undermined other countries’ climate efforts. Emissions from the aviation industry are growing faster than those of any other transportation sector. But instead of using the Clean Air Act to write carbon-emission rules for planes, the Obama administration has fought regulations Europe developed to address this problem. That has to stop.
With the crisis deepening, the president must match his actions to his rhetoric. The Clean Air Act allows for setting national standards for the most pervasive air pollutants. Smog and lead have been successfully regulated in this way. Once set, these standards give states strong tools to bring pollutant concentrations down. A national standard for carbon could be an incredibly potent weapon in the climate fight.
Having worked for the air office at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I would never suggest that writing such regulations would be quick or easy. And I am glad that the president is finally talking about the single issue that will define the 21st century. But we need action, and we need it fast.
President Obama says he wants to address climate change. His spokesperson has suggested that new details will be forthcoming in a couple of weeks, during the State of the Union address. Science-deniers and polluting industries are already howling in protest.
The question for us, especially the young, is simple: Can we bring more political pressure than those who profit from pollution and do our part to help persuade this president, finally, to act?
Tim Ream of San Francisco, a graduate of the University of Oregon School of Law, is an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.

Comments on Coyote Island Terminal Permit

Cascadia Wildlands submitted the following comments on the Coyote Island Terminal Permit Application (Port of Morrow):

Click below to view the PDF file.  

CascWild – Comment on APP0049123 Coyote Island Terminal Permit Application

we like it wild. Follow us Facebook Twiter RSS