In September, 2000, the Oregon Progress Board released an outstanding analytical report prepared by a Science Panel composed of highly-qualified scientists and technicians. It was entitled “Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000”.
Looking back thirteen years, it now appears this report was both a triumph and a tragedy.
Initially, it was indeed a triumph. The letter transmitting the report to Oregonians was signed by Governor Kitzhaber as well as five other former governors. The letter stated that the environmental “achievements of the past are not enough to forestall the problems of the future”. It went on to state that “the Oregon State of the Environment Report is the first scientifically credible, comprehensive assessment of Oregon’s environment” and that the report “provides Oregonians with much needed scientifically sound information on which we can rely ….for planning future policies to improve Oregon’s environment and economy”.
The report contains an Executive Summary which includes a paragraph on page 3 that effectively captures the essence of the report. This paragraph reads as follows:
“The State’s existing environmental data collection and management system must be improved to effectively measure ecological conditions, trends or risks (emphasis in original).
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 (emphasis provided) as described in this report, which are aimed at sustaining the health of naturally functioning landscapes and the productive capacity of the environment.”
In other words, the report recognizes and documents the fact that Oregon’s existing environmental management machinery is obsolete and inadequate to function satisfactorily in the modern world. This finding is the triumphant result of the report.
The tragedy associated with the report has to do with the fact that no meaningful efforts to implement its well-reasoned recommendations have been initiated over the past 13 years. State, county, and local agencies are still stumbling along using obsolete and often-times uncoordinated management processes during an era of increasingly critical needs for effective balancing of environmental, technical, and economic considerations.
A real-life situation exists that illustrates the inefficiency and uncoordinated nature of current state and county processes.
As everyone knows, the implementation of the Jordan Cove LNG Export terminal, together with its integral Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (PCGP) and South Dunes Power plant, depends entirely on the issuance of a permit by FERC. FERC, in turn, must document its decision process leading to a decision to grant or deny the permit via an EIS process in compliance with existing federal law and regulations. The EIS process consists of four major steps, namely: 1) Scoping, whereby affected parties indicate aspects and impacts of the proposed project that should be considered in the EIS; 2) publication of a Draft EIS followed by public comments; 3) publication of a Final EIS incorporating as applicable pertinent public comments, and 4) publication of a Record of Decision fully documenting how environmental, technical, and economic factors were balanced to arrive at the final decision.
PCGP had previously identified their preferred route for the new pipeline for use in FERC’s now-vacated EIS for the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal. They have since made changes to portions of their preferred route. It is entirely appropriate for them to identify these changes to FERC for use in their upcoming Draft EIS for the LNG export terminal.
In addition, however, PCGP has also requested that Coos County formally amend their land use approval for the original preferred route to also include an amended route. The purpose of undertaking this change is spelled out in Coos County’s hearing notice of January 9, 2013 thusly: “The request is to make sure both the original and the amended portions of the route have the appropriate land use approvals and FERC will render a decision on which route is appropriate (emphasis provided):.
Thus, Coos County is undertaking a planning process that is underlain by a faulty set of assumptions. Before even the release date for FERC’s Draft EIS has been announced, Coos County obviously assumes the Jordan Cove project will be approved, and that FERC’s choice for the pipeline route is limited to either the original location preferred by Jordan Cove or its amended location.
Existing federal regulations explicitly prohibit FERC from proceeding in this manner. They state: An EIS “must be objectively prepared and not slanted to support the choice of the agency’s preferred alternative over the other reasonable and feasible alternatives”; and, “An EIS must examine all reasonable alternatives to the proposal. The emphasis is on what is “reasonable” rather than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a particular alternative. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible (emphasis in original) from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable (emphasis in original) from the standpoint of the applicant”.
The Oregon Department of Justice has provided FERC with an excellent and complete set of scoping comments to guide the preparation of the forthcoming Draft EIS. Their comments are contained in a document that is 33 pages in length and supports the letter and intent of the NEPA regulations. The Oregon Department of Justice specifically addresses the matter of alternative pipeline locations as follows:
“In the past, (FERC) has erroneously negated reasonable alternatives from further analysis in an EIS by assuming that longer pipelines, for example, would have the same or more environmental impacts as the proposed action before (emphasis in original) the agency fully or adequately analyzed such alternatives. Alternative routes for the pipeline must be separately analyzed because its length is not the only indicator of environmental effects, because its location may eliminate all or a substantial portion of adverse impacts on particular resources.”
The Jordan Cove facility and its related pipeline have the potential to render massive changes to Oregon’s environment and way of life. The planning and decision processes relating to this proposal must be comprehensive, objective. and coordinated. It is not encouraging to find the discrepancies between the State and County processes caused by the obsolete management framework identified by the Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000.
Based on its detailed scoping comments to FERC, it is obvious that the Oregon Department of Justice fully supports and participates in the federal NEPA process so as to ensure it is used to rationally plan for Oregon’s future. Simultaneously, Coos County is making decisions that, while apparently not in conflict with existing state procedures, in effect give the impression of seeking to evade or circumvent the federal NEPA regulations. To undertake the County decision process regarding the PCGP at this time seems to be a grossly premature action. When completed, the Jordan Cove EIS would provide much data and analysis that would provide useful input to the County’s decision process. Further, until the Draft EIS is issued, the County has no idea as to how many “reasonable” pipeline alternative locations FERC will finally decide to consider and analyze, nor if, in fact, FERC will approve the Jordan Cove project in its entirety.
Why is it necessary to utilize scarce County funding and staff time now in order to take a shot in the dark rather than wait to make an informed decision later when the federal, state, and county planning processes come together in a logical manner?
We wouldn’t be in this embarrassing and counter-productive mess if the recommendations of the Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000 had been implemented in a timely manner.
