It was almost 13 years ago now that the Oregon Progress Board issued the outstanding document entitled “Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000”. This report was the first scientifically credible and comprehensive assessment of Oregon’s environment and the State programs in place to effectively manage it. A key finding of the assessment is summarized in the document as follows: “The State’s existing environmental data collection and management system must be improved to effectively measure ecological conditions, trends or risks. Measuring ecological conditions, trends, and risks is fundamentally different from the problems Oregon’s environmental programs were initially established to address. Resolving them will require new approaches ….”.
Unfortunately, while many States have revamped and re-designed their environmental management machinery to meet current needs and to mesh with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act at the Federal level, Oregon has made no significant effort to improve its policies and procedures. We continue to struggle forward using management machinery that has clearly been documented as being inadequate and obsolete.
A different situation exists to our north within the State of Washington.
Washington has in place their State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
SEPA applies to all state agencies, counties, cities, ports, and special districts. Any project or proposal having significant environmental effects proposed by or under the jurisdiction of any of these entities must undergo an explicitly designed environmental analysis process before any pertinent decisions are made. The analytical process is under the direction of a designated lead agency, and incorporates all other applicable governmental entities as well as the general public.
Both Oregon and Washington are currently involved with major energy-related project proposals. Oregon is dealing with the Jordan Cove LNG export terminal proposal on Coos Bay and Washington is dealing with the Millennium Bulk Terminals coal export terminal proposal near Longview.
Both proposals are at the same stage of development, namely, both are in the beginning stages of the development of a draft EIS by a federal agency ultimately responsible for issuing a permit to permit project implementation. In the Coos Bay case, FERC is the responsible federal agency while, in Longview, the US Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction.
It is very interesting to see how things are progressing in each state.
In Oregon, the Jordan Cove applicant has sought various agreements and permits at the local, county, and state levels even though the federal EIS process is barely underway and a decision at the federal level is at least a year away. In Washington, the Department of Ecology (DOE) has clearly stated “Decisions about permits cannot be made by local, state, and federal agencies until after the final EIS is issued”.
In Oregon, Jordan Cove is engaged in an aggressive public relations campaign, even involving outside paid lobbying groups, to build broad scale public and institutional support for their project. Such activities on the part of an applicant prior to the completion of the EIS are prohibited under the NEPA regulations which FERC apparently has chosen to ignore to date. In Washington, the DOE states “A limited amount of information submitted by the applicant will be available (to the public) at this point in the process”
In Oregon, the federal EIS being prepared by FERC is viewed as an externality. It is not viewed as an integral part of a decision process but rather as a listing of the environmental impacts of a pre-determined decision. It is apparently not viewed as an essential element of information leading to the issuance of the various county and state permits under consideration.
In Washington, the situation is much more efficient and logical.
Cowlitz County, the Washington Department of Ecology, and the US Corps of Engineers have formally joined together and will conduct a single EIS process leading to one joint EIS. This joint EIS will fully comply with both the State Environmental Policy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
In Oregon, chaos reigns. The public is unsure as to how, when, where, and to whom to submit comments and participate meaningfully in the process, and the true role and legal requirements of a valid EIS are not clearly understood.
In Washington, the public participation process is clearly identified and facilitated, and the role and purpose of an EIS is made explicit.
The Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000 got it right – we have an environmental management mess on our hands. But, why worry, after all we do have a world-class Football Performance Center to be proud of.
