FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEDS, STATES, & LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BLAST FERC’S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR LNG PROJECT ON COLUMBIA RIVER
Oct. 7, 2015 (Warrenton, OR) – A flood of harsh criticism from federal and state agencies, as well as local governments, tribes, and a coalition of fishing and public health groups, poured into the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the comment period on the controversial Oregon LNG liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and pipeline drew to a close. Agencies and the public weighed in on FERC’s1,000-plus page environmental impact statement for the proposed Oregon LNG terminal and over 200 miles of new gas pipeline extending from the Washington State-Canada border to the mouth of the Columbia River. In the draft environmental review, FERC concludes that the project would cause adverse impacts to the environment, which the company can reduce through mitigation and engineering. Other federal agencies, the states of Oregon and Washington, and a coalition of fishing and public health groups disagreed.
“This project flies in the face of good science and good public policy,” said Columbia Riverkeeper Conservation Director, Dan Serres. “It is not surprising that federal and state scientists blasted FERC’s review. FERC has a storied history of ignoring and downplaying valid objections to LNG development.”
Agencies that weighed in to criticize FERC’s environmental review included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and over a dozen Oregon and Washington state agencies. For example, the U.S. Department of the Interior expressed “considerable concern about environmental impacts related to the potential development...including the potential impact to natural and cultural resources, as well as other trust resources.” Interior, which filed comments on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, criticized FERC’s opinion on the project’s impacts to the National Park system, the safety of park visitors, and endangered species.
EPA joined the states of Oregon and Washington in criticizing FERC for ignoring the project’s impacts on climate change. Oregon LNG would use natural gas feedstock from Western Canada or the western U.S. This type of gas, known as shale gas, requires the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking). FERC concluded that federal law does not require evaluating the impacts of natural gas drilling and gas burning. EPA and the states disagreed. EPA ultimately concluded that FERC’s environmental review contained “inadequate information” and the states of Oregon and Washington called on FERC to make a laundry list of revisions to the draft environmental review before reaching a final decision on the project.
A large coalition of commercial and sport fishing, public health, property rights, and environmental groups joined agencies in calling on FERC to recognize the significant impacts of Oregon LNG’s project and deny permits for LNG export on the Columbia.
Read a selection of the agency, tribal, and local government comments:
- City of Astoria
- Columbia Riverkeeper et al OLNG DEIS Comments
- Clatsop County
- Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
- Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
- State of Oregon Agencies
- U.S. Department of the Interior
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Washington Department of Ecology
- Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Background information
Currently, there are two proposals to locate LNG facilities on the Oregon Coast and the Columbia River, coupled with associated proposals to construct hundreds of miles of new natural gas pipelines throughout Oregon and Washington. Oregon LNG has faced a rocky path over the last ten years since initially proposing an LNG import terminal in the Columbia River estuary. Oregon LNG was the subject of a criminal investigation into its illegal action to obtain the terminal land lease; Oregon LNG sued the Port of Astoria when the Port wanted to get out of the questionable lease; and Oregon LNG sued Clatsop County after the County rejected the LNG pipeline application.
About Columbia Riverkeeper
Columbia Riverkeeper’s mission is to protect and restore the water quality of the Columbia River and all life connected to it, from the headwaters to the Pacific Ocean. Representing over 8,000 members and supporters, Columbia Riverkeeper works to restore a Columbia River where people can safely eat the fish they catch, and where children can swim without fear of toxic exposure. The organization is a member of Waterkeeper Alliance, the world’s fastest growing environmental movement, uniting more than 200 Waterkeeper organizations worldwide. For more information, go to columbiariverkeeper.org.
