Oregon LNG’s $6 billion terminal and pipeline project would cause adverse impacts to the environment, but most could be reduced if the energy company takes steps to minimize harm to fish and wildlife habitat and water quality and uses adequate safety features in design and operation.

 

Feds release draft environmental review of Oregon LNG project

By Derrick DePledgeThe Daily Astorian

Joshua Bessex/The Daily Astorian

Ted Messing, left, of Brownsmead, and Josie Peper, right, of Astoria, hold signs protesting an Oregon LNG project outside of the Warrenton Community Center in January.

Draft recommends steps to protect environment, ensure safety

WARRENTON — Oregon LNG’s $6 billion terminal and pipeline project would cause adverse impacts to the environment, a draft environmental review has found, but most could be reduced if the energy company takes steps to minimize harm to fish and wildlife habitat and water quality and uses adequate safety features in design and operation.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which released the draft review this week, is still completing an assessment of how the project might impact threatened or endangered species and critical habitat.
But the draft is an important benchmark in the decade-long drive for the project, which involves a terminal along the Skipanon Peninsula in Warrenton and an 87-mile pipeline from Washington state through Columbia, Tillamook and Clatsop counties.
Oregon LNG would export natural gas from Canada and the Rocky Mountains in the United States to foreign markets, likely in Asia. The energy company could also potentially import natural gas to the Portland metropolitan area.
Environmentalists, fishermen and residents in Warrenton and Astoria who oppose Oregon LNG will likely tear through the document in search of potential defects that could stall or block the project.
Public comment on the draft is open until early October. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has set a timetable for completing the final environmental impact statement on the project by February.

River, traffic, jobs
LNG marine carriers, according to the draft, would increase ship traffic in the Lower Columbia River by about 125 vessels a year. But the draft found that the terminal would not impact marinas and described security zones as a minor inconvenience given the size of the river.
Conflicts between LNG carriers and other ships in the federal navigation channel, the draft found, could be avoided through proper coordination and should not significantly impact vessel traffic along the river.
The draft also recognized concerns from the public and the state Department of Fish and Wildlife about the potential disruption to fishing, but concluded that the project would have minimal impacts on commercial and recreational fishing.
“Commercial and recreational fishermen are already accustomed to the presence of large tankers in the federal navigation channel,” the draft review states. “The Coast Guard’s safety and security measures would require fishermen in the vicinity of the federal navigation channel or proposed turning basin to temporarily move out of the way of LNG marine carriers to avoid the safety zone recommended by the Coast Guard.
“However, this temporary inconvenience would last only a short time as the ship passes, at which point the fishing activities would be allowed to resume at the original positions within the river.”
While the terminal will lead to slightly higher traffic volumes on already congested Warrenton roads, the draft projects that terminal operations would not have significant cumulative impacts on future traffic conditions.
The draft review estimates that terminal construction over four years would generate about 9,584 jobs, including 2,755 direct jobs. Once the terminal is built, Oregon LNG could employ about 145 workers.
Pipeline construction, which would take about three years, could generate about 256 direct jobs.
“We conclude that the economic impacts of the Oregon LNG project would be positive,” the draft states.
Oregon LNG, a subsidiary of Leucadia National Corp., a New York-based holding company, did not respond to an email seeking comment on the draft review.
Lauren Goldberg, a staff attorney for Columbia Riverkeeper, a Hood River-based environmental group that has been among the leaders of the opposition to the project, said she had not yet seen the draft. The Daily Astorian described some of the findings to her.
“The people of Clatsop County want clean water, safe communities, and strong salmon runs. Oregon LNG’s project undermines these goals,” Goldberg said in an email. “FERC has a track record of ignoring well-founded local concerns — including significant concerns from expert state and federal scientists — about the risks of LNG development.
“The draft environmental impact statement adds to this history of ignoring the best available science and the people who understand the most about the Columbia River estuary.”

Geology, reliability, safety
Given the risk of a devastating earthquake linked to the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and the potential for tsunamis on the North Coast, the draft found that Oregon LNG would reduce hazards through special construction techniques and monitoring of operations.
The draft concludes that if the energy company follows through on such measures along with staff recommendations, the geologic risks would be reduced to acceptable levels.
Activists have warned that the project would unnecessarily expose residents in Warrenton and Astoria to danger from an explosion or spill.
But Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff concluded that the project, if designed as proposed by Oregon LNG and improved through staff recommendations, “would provide acceptable layers of protection that would reduce the risk of a potentially hazardous scenario from developing into an event that could impact the off-site public.”

Review, possible hurdles
While other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers, provided input on the draft environmental review, the agencies could release separate conclusions and recommendations about the project.
The draft review references a lawsuit Oregon LNG filed against the Army Corps of Engineers last year challenging an easement the Corps holds along the Skipanon Peninsula to deposit dredging spoils. A federal magistrate judge ruled last week that Oregon LNG waited too long to bring the claim, potentially clouding whether the energy company can fully use land leased from the Port of Astoria for the project.
State and local governments also have an oversight role, and could pose potential hurdles for Oregon LNG.
Earlier this year, the state Land Use Board of Appeals upheld Clatsop County’s 2013 vote to reject a permit for part of the pipeline. The county had raised possible safety concerns for residents; conflicts with aquatic zone standards; and the potential risk of “frac-outs” — or toxic fluid escapes — during horizontal directional drilling for underground pipeline construction.
The draft recommends that prior to any construction, Oregon LNG show the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development has found the project consistent with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
Part of the criteria the state is expected to use in making that determination is whether the project has county approvals.
• Read the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s draft environmental impact statement on the Oregon LNG project at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2015/08-05-15-eis.asp


////------------------////


Draft Environmental Impact Statement

FERC Staff Issues Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Oregon LNG Project Docket Nos. CP09-6-000, 001 and CP09-7-000, 001); and the Washington Expansion Project (Docket No. CP13-507-000)
Issued August 5, 2015

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project (Oregon LNG Project) and Washington Expansion Project.

LNG Development Company, LLC is requesting authorization to site, construct, and operate an onshore, import/export liquefied natural gas terminal and associated facilities on the East Bank Skipanon Peninsula in Warrenton, Oregon. The proposed terminal includes feed gas pretreatment, liquefaction, and regasification facilities; two 160,000-cubic-meter LNG storage tanks; a turning basin; and berth for one LNG carrier. The terminal would have a base load liquefaction capacity of 9.6 million tons per annum and a base load regasification capacity of 0.5 billion cubic feet per day. Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC is requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate an 86.8-mile-long, 36 inch diameter bidirectional pipeline to transport natural gas to and from the terminal to interconnect with the interstate transmission system of Northwest Pipeline LLC (Northwest), near Woodland, Washington; and construct a single electrically driven compressor station in Columbia County, Oregon. LNG Development Company, LLC and Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC are collectively referred to as Oregon LNG.

To provide 750,000 dekatherms per day natural gas for the terminal, Northwest is proposing to expand the capacity of its existing Northwest Pipeline between Sumas and Woodland, Washington, by constructing and operating 10 noncontiguous 36-inch-diameter pipeline loops for a total of 140.6 miles. Northwest would also increase compression at five existing compressor stations and abandon-by-removal certain aboveground facilities and segments of its existing, previously abandoned 26-inch-diameter pipeline. At most locations, the new 36-inch-diameter pipeline would be installed in the existing trench of the removed 26-inch-diameter pipeline.

The draft EIS was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508), and FERC regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Department of Energy participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the draft EIS.

FERC’s environmental staff concludes that construction and operation of the projects would result in some adverse environmental impacts. However, most of these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of minimization and mitigation measures proposed by Oregon LNG and Northwest, and the additional measures recommended by the FERC staff in the draft EIS. Although many factors were considered in this determination, the principal reasons are:

• Oregon LNG would minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources during construction and operation of the projects by implementing measures contained in its Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Plan and Procedures); and other project-specific plans including: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan; Inadvertent Release Contingency Plan; Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan; Residential Construction Plans; Wetland Mitigation Plan; Fish Salvage Plan; State Forest Mitigation Plan; Procedures for Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources and Human Remains; and Traffic Management Plans.
• Northwest would minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources during construction and operation of the project by implementing measures contained in its Plan and Procedures and other project-specific plans including: Erosion Control and Revegetation Plan; Inadvertent Release Contingency Plan; Residential Construction Plans; Site-specific School Construction Plans; Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan; Procedures for the Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources and Human Remains; and Water Quality Monitoring Plan.
• Oregon LNG and Northwest would use horizontal directional drilling or the direct pipe method for most major waterbodies, which would generally avoid direct impacts on aquatic and water resources.
• The majority of the Washington Expansion Project (94 percent) would be constructed within Northwest’s existing pipeline right-of-way.
• FERC staff's technical review of the preliminary engineering designs, as well as suggested mitigation measures, indicates that sufficient layers of safeguards would be included in the facility designs to mitigate the potential for an incident that could impact safety of the off-site public.
• U.S. Coast Guard's Letter of Recommendation indicates that the waterway would be suitable for the type and frequency of the marine traffic associated with the Oregon LNG Project.
• Endangered Species Act consultations would be completed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service prior to allowing any construction to begin.
• Consultation regarding Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and implementation of the regulations at 36 CFR 800 would be concluded prior to allowing any construction to begin.
• FERC staff would ensure compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of the FERC authorizations and other approvals during our oversight of the environmental inspection and mitigation monitoring programs for both projects.

Comments on the draft EIS must be received in Washington, DC on or before October 6, 2015. Once the final EIS is issued, the FERC Commissioners will take into consideration staff’s recommendations when the Commission makes a decision on the projects.