[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
ENCLOSURE J Energy Facmilimtmies In The 0 e on Coastal Zone VOLUMEI THE PLANNING PROCESS TD 195 9 .E5 H65 1978 cummm V.1 AN ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE OREGON COASTAL ZONE PART I THE PLANNING PROCESS P-roperty of CSC Libraz-y U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413 Principal Investigator Edward A. Holt Senior Resources Planner Mathematical Sciences Northwest Inc. This report was funded in part with financial assistance provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administered by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. C" ca- r- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by Edward A. Holt, Senior Resources Planner and Michael Harlow, Senior Environmental Scientist of Mathematical Sciences Northwest, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Specific views and recommendations are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the Department of Land Conservation and Development or persons who provided assistance or information. Thanks are due to the following persons and organizations who provided assistance, information and/or critical reviews: Jon Christenson and Neal Coenen, Department of Land Conservation and Development; Kelly Woods, Dave Philbrick, and Fred Miller, Oregon Department of Energy; Leonard Wilkerson, Division of State Lands; Paul Haugland, Intergovernmental Relations Division; Norm Behrans, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; John Kowalcyzk, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; Dawn Dressler, Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council. Nick Lewis, Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council; Bill Waddell, Washington Public Power Supply System; Michael Hambrock, CEIP, Washington Department of Ecology. Kathi Larson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland Office; Dennis Maxwell, Bonneville Power Administration; U.S. Department of Energy, Region X, Seattle; Pacific OCS Office, Bureau of Land Managment, Los Angeles; Mike Johnston, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Lt. Olenick, U.S. Coast Guard; Pacific N.W. River Basins Commission. Arnold Cogan, Cogan and Associates, Portland; Glenn Odell, Seton Johnson and Odell, Portland; Wayne Rifer, and Linda Bullard, Natural Heritage Program, Oregon Nature Conservancy. Tom Ashton, Pacific Power and Light Co.; Blachey-Lane Electric Cooperative; Consumer Power, Inc.; Howard Crinklaw Jr., Douglas Electric Cooperative; Bob Drake, Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative; William Gibbs, Northwest Natural Gas Co.; Hilary Heizenrader, Portland General Electric; Lee Johnson, RAIN Magazine; Chuck LaTansey and Jim McQueen, Chevron, U.S.A.; Jack Madison, Tillamook PUD; Bill Ubanks, Brown and Root; Richard Van Mell, GATX; Don Westland, Clatskanie PUD, and Brian Winters, Central Lincoln PUD. Cover Photo: Proposed LNG Marine Terminal at Nei..7port. Courtesy of Northwest Natural Gas. PREFACE Energy Facilities in the Oregon Coastal Zone is a report prepared by Mathematical Sciences Northwest, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, under contract with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Technical assistance was provided by the Oregon Department of Energy. The 1976 amendments to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that coastal states have an energy facility planning process. This requirement has resulted in the development of proposed amendments to Oregon's approved Coastal Management Program. As background to the program amendments, this report was developed to document the existing planning process and to identify energy facilities likely to locate in the coastal zone. Part I explains and evaluates the current planning process for energy facilities in Oregon. Part II is an analysis of energy facilities which are likely to locate in, or which may significantly affect the state's coastal zone. Executive summaries of the report have been circulated to local officials, planning department, ports and industry. Copies of the executive summary are available from the Department of Land Conservation and Development. September 1978 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction I Policies 2 Procedures 5 Response to Federal Requirements 10 Recommendations 37 ii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Likely Needed State Permits 11 2 Summary of Existing Energy Facilities 15 in the Oregon Coastal Zone 3 Federal Regulatory Activities for 33 Energy Facilities LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 The Oregon Energy Facility Planning Process 7 LIST OF MAPS MAP PAGE I BPA High Voltage Transmission Lines 17 in the Oregon Coastal Zone 2 Area Served by Northwest Natural Gas Company 19 3 Interim Land Use Designations for Fossil Fuel 24 4 Interim Land Use Designations for Nuclear 25 Thermal Power Plant 2 Introduction Section 305(b)(8) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended, requires states to develop "a planning pro- cess for energy facilities likely to be located in, or which may significantly affect, the coastal zone, including, but not limited to, a process for anticipating and managing the impacts from such facilities." Rules implementing this law have been published in 15 CFR 923.14. This discussion documents Oregon's energy facility planning process and concludes that present policies, laws, and administrative rules satisfactorily address the federal require- ments. At the same time, this study has revealed areas of the planning process that could be strengthened, resulting in the in- clusion of several recommendations. In 1971, the State of Oregon, anticipating the need for electric power plants, and recognizing their substantial impacts and demands on public resources, established the Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council (NTEC) to implement a centralized one-stop permitting process. In 1975, NTEC was expanded to include certain additional energy facilities, and renamed the Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC). In addition to EFSC, which is identified exclusively with energy facilities, several other state agencies have permitting authorities that address the impacts of development activities, in- cluding other energy facilities. In 1973, Oregon officially recognized the importance of a comprehensive approach to land use planning by passing the Oregon Land Use Act. The Act requires that the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) establish statewide planning goals which are @@tandards to be applied in developing local comprehensive plans. These local plans must then be approved by LCDC. Energy facilities, whether under the jurisdiction of EFSC or other agencies, must conform to the statewide planning goals and the acknowledged local plans. The energy facility planning process in Oregon thus consists of three major components: * Statewide planning goals adopted by LCDC * Acknowledged comprehensive plans developed by local governments and approved by LCDC 9 Specific statutory authorities of other state agencies 2 The Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP) describes these comnnnents at some length. The focus of the following discussion will be on those policies which affect the siting of energy facilities in the Oregon coastal zone. The report first summarizes Oregon policy concerning energy facility siting, followed by an overview of the energy facility siting procedures. The largest section documents how Oregon meets federal requirements for the planning process. The last section pre- sents several recommendations for improving the process, with an emphasis on planning prior to the receipt of siting applications. Policies One of the legislative findings of the Land Use Planning Act is: The promotion of coordinated state-wide land conser- vation and development requires the creation of a state-wide planning agency to prescribe planning goals and objectives to be applied by state agencies, cities, counties, and special districts throughout the state. (ORS 197.005) In response to this mandate, LCDC has adopted 19 statewide planning goals. The last four of these were adopted on December 18, 1976 and address specifically the particular needs and problems of Oregon's coast. These goals are for Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources. However, while some goals are of more relevance to coastal development than others, all goals must be accorded equal importance in the development of T-ocal comprehensive plans and in judging conformance of actions which would permit land development. The goals are described in detail in Appendix 4 of the OCMP. A key element in each of the goals is the balancing of con- servation and development interests. Particular legislative recog- nition of the need to balance competing interests in the coastal zone is given in the legislation establishing the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission which operated between 1971 and 1975 prior to LCDC assuming its functions: The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that: 1. The coastal zone in this state is an important and valuable part of the natural resources of this state and that because of its value there exists a need for its protection through the development and maintenance of a balance between conservation and development interests with respect to such natural resources. 3 2. There exists a conflict in the development and use of the natural resources of the coastal zone among industrial interests, commercial and resi- dential development interests, recreational interests, power resource interests, transportation and other navigational interests, waste disposal interest and fish and other marine resource interests. 3. To further the policy of this state in the protec- tion, preservation, development, and, where practicable, the restoration of the natural resources of -the coastal zone, a commission should be established to develop and prepare a compre- hensive plan for the conservation and development of the natural resources of the coastal zone that will provide the necessary balance between con- flicting public and private interests in the coastal zone. (ORS 191.110) Another key policy of the State of Oregon is the state's commitment to local, as opposed to state, control of land use planning. According to ORS 197.005, the Legislative Assembly finds that "cities and counties should remain as the agencies to consider, promote and manage the local aspects of land conservation and development for the best -interests of the people within their juris- dictions." The State provides impetus to local planning and control in the following ways: e State law requires that comprehensive plans must be prepared at the local level (ORS 197.010) * State law requires that all public actions be consistent with the approved local plans (ORS 197.010 and Goal 2) * Several administrative rules of various state agencies require that proposed projects be in conformance with local plans before any permits may be issued. These include: - OAR 345-75-025(5)(a) EFSC - OAR 141-85-205(5)(d) Division of State Lands - OAR 632-30-020(b), OAR 632-20-030(3), ORS 570.025(:3a) Department"of Geology and Mineral Industries 4 State law requires that state agencies submit to LCDC programs for assuring that the planning effort of the agencies affecting land use are compatible with local comprehensive plans (ORS 197.180 and 197.040(2)(f)) Several requirements ensure that interests other than local in nature are not overlooked in the development of local compre- hensive plans: 9 Statewide goals and guidelines, approved by LCDC after public hearings, must be followed by local governments in developing their plans (ORS 197.175) e State agencies provide information and technical assistance to local government in the development of local plans (ORS 197.180) e Each local plan must be approved by LCDC (ORS 197.251) 9 LCDC will conduct annual progress reviews of local plans to ensure that plans remain responsive to changing conditions (ORS 197.260) Integration into the network of mechanisms for the considera- tion of the national interest is generally described in OCMP Chapter III. The national interest in the planning for and siting of energy facilities, as required by 15 CFR 923.52, is discussed below. Coordination is another policy element of the land use'planning process, including planning for energy facilities, and is mandated by the Legislative Assembly: To promote coordinated administration of land uses consistent with comprehensive plans adopted through- out the state, it is necessary to establish a process for the review of state agency, city, county, and special district land conservation and development plans for compliance with statewide planning goals. (ORS 197.005) As a result, Oregon has developed a strong set of coordination pro- grams, some of which have been working for several years, and some of which are now being implemented. These programs are implemented by the State Permit Coordination Center in the Intergovernmental Relations Division, the Energy Facility Siting Council, the Land 5 Conservation and Development Commission, and various other state agencies. The programs include the State Agency Coordination Pro- grams, the State Permit Consistency Rule (still in draft form), Federal Consistency Determination, and the A-95 review process. These programs are discussed in more detail below in response to 15 CFR 923.14. Procedures This section presents an overview of the energy facility planning process. An applicant for siting an energy facility in Oregon follows one of two basic tracks, each of which is prescribed according to the type of facility proposed: either (1) he follows the one-stop process of the Energy Facility Siting Council, or (2) he must attempt to satisfy individually several permitting autho- rities, a process which may be facilitated by completing a Master Application to the State Permit Coordination Center. This latter track is not exclusive to energy facilities, but may be used by any development applicant. In either case, review for consistency of the proposed project with the OCMP is automatic. The two pro- cedures are simplified to flow charts in Figure 1. The Energy Facility Siting Council consists of seven public members, each appointed by the Governor for a four-year term. The Council is directed to: 1. Conduct studies relating to all aspects of site selection 2. Designate areas that are suitable or unsuitable for use as sites for nuclear or fossil-fueled thermal power plants larger than 200 megawatts,and geothermal power plants 3. Establish standards for the issuance of site certificates (ORS 469.470) The energy facilities under the jurisdiction of EFSC are: 1. Any electric power generating plant with a capacity greater than 25 megawatts, including both hydro and thermal power 2. Any nuclear power reactor, fuel fabrication or reprocessing plant 7 Finure 1 THE OREGON ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS Planning Permit Processing* ........... f Site Notice Application EFSC Site X-:-X-X-X-X-X-X- ............... of Intent for Site Study Hearings Certi f i ca tie; Certificate XX .... ........ X*3 C':'X'X*_ EFSC Site Certificate ..................... X-X-X-X-X-%-.-X-- Local, State and ............. Binds State and Local Facilities Subject Federal Agencies :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::*Agencies to Issue FSC Jurisdict* Required Permits and :+X+X+X+X-:-X General Public and Licenses but does no DOE '* * " *--- .*.'.*.'.*-*-'-* X Forecasting of Intervenors ..... Eliminate Need to A ..... .. %........ .. ply .................................. ...... ......................................... x. Xv Energy Demand - .4 x . ............ .. ............. . ............. .. ............. ermit ............ Local Government v ............. . .......... EFSC """'p @ I'* Individual . .. ..... ..... Agency Classification of Facilities not Subjec E X+ Areas Sui tab 1 e for Permit Permit X+: DEQ Air and Water Power Plants LlSt Of Review File Master Application W. tate and % K: and Intergovern t I Local Division of Hearing Permit Relations Div. Permits State Lands Process State Goals Required (Or)tional ....... `.`x% Informally ....... .... Applicant and Guidelines Public Utilities Coordinated .... Permit Coastal Siting Comm i s s i on ........... -Management Decision ........... Program Xe +:+e: ............. Vil% X-e Other State - - -' +:': Permit X.. Agencies ... Local ............ . - --- ----- - ---- Government - ---- - Comprehensive LCDC Plans & Zoning Consistency Review X .. .......... . ............. ....... Corps of Engineers NEPA Permit - ------------------ X x Process Facilities X. Bureau of Land Management :::X:+:.:+X-:-X Permit Federal Government ............ .0: *Ei ther (_A_@ or @'D@, and ----------- ---- X 7. :* ........... . klf@/ Non- X .. ....... + probably :-X+:-X-X-:-:-X-:- X -X. :-X-X-.-.- Other Federal Kegulatory +: ;!ESZ - + Regulatory Permit -x X. Federal ..XY xxXiew. '.X X A enci +: es X.. - .............. ........ ..... -Y ....XXXVX %x0e.- Oyx. X V. SOURCE: Adapted from Seton, Johnson & Odell, Inc. and Cogan &Associates June 28, 1978 Discussion Paper 9 3. Transmission lines of more than ten miles in length with a capacity in excess of 230 kV 4. A solar collecting facility using more than 100 acres of land, or providing more than 25 megawatts of power 5. A pipeline five miles or longer in length and six inches in diameter, used for petroleum, LNG, or geothermal energy, or 16 inches in diameter used for natural or synthetic gas 6. Related or supporting facilities An applicant who wishes to build a thermal power plant (except a combustion turbine or geothermal power plant) with a capacity greater than 200 megawatts must file a notice of intent (NOI) to file an application for a site certificate. This triggers a public notice. The application may not be filed until 120 days after filing of the NOI. The NOI and all applications must be sent for comment and recommendation within specified deadlines to numerous state agencies and any city or county affected by the application. Hearings must be held, and EFSC must approve or reject an application within specified times. Any person, including agencies of the federal government and other states, may present testimony in any hearing. In addition, formal intervenor status may be -granted to any person by EFSC, provided the request is made before the final taking of evidence in the hearing. The Oregon Department of Energy serves to generate information about the application and has intervenor status. Any intervenor may appeal the EFSC decision, within a specified time, to the Oregon Supreme Court. While EFSC may grant a site certificate, it does not actually issue the necessary permits. However, the site certificate binds state and local agencies to issue the necessary permits subject only to the conditions of the certificate. The conditions imposed will be the result of agency comments on the application and will be determined by agency negotiations with EFSC. Each agency continues to exert enforcement authority over any permit it issues. Further- more, a site certificate may be issued only after EFSC finds that the proposed facility is in conformance with the local comprehensive plan in effect at the time of filing the NOI (OAR 345-75-025(5)(a)). By this rule EFSC appears to have disavowed pre-emption authority over local comprehensive plans. 10 Following the second track, EFSC is not involved in the siting decision for an oil port, an LNG terminal, an oil production platform fabrication yard, or an oil refinery, for examples. In these cases, the applicant may seek the assistance of the State Permit Coordina- tion Center operated by the Intergovernmental Relations Division (IRD). The IRD will ask the applicant to complete a short Master Application from which IRD will determine what state permits are necessary and supply the applicant with appropriate regulations. The applicant is then on his own to individually obtain each of the designated permits, although if more than one public hearing is required, he may request that they be combined. Major-state permits likely to be required by energy facilities include those listed in Table 1. The state permits may be issued if the applicant meets certain standards or conditions. They will be reviewed for consistency with the OCMP by circulating the applications to other state agencies, and by requesting local governments to make a finding of compatibility with their comprehensive plans. As was pointed out earlier, several agencies will not issue a permit unless the application is shown to be in conformance with local plans. The permits, if granted, may be conditioned to minimize impacts. The appeals process for each state agency permit decision is described in each agency's enabling legislation (Appendix 5 of the OCMP). If dissatisfied with the outcome of that process, any state agency, city, county, or special district governing body, may peti- tion to LCDC to review a land conservation and development action taken by a state agency, city, county, or special district on the basis that the action is in conflict with statewide planning goals. LCDC will undertake the review only after the normal appeals pro- cedure for the action agency has been exhausted. Response to Federal Requirements The Office of Coastal Zone Management has published five requirements for an energy facility planning process that must be met by an approved program. These requirements are published in 15 CFR 923.14, and are here addressed in detail, one at a time. 1. Identification of energy facilities which are Likely to locate in, or which may significantly affect, a state's coastal zone. C-) C') (D a, M 'a V) Ln 0 -n (D (D '0 q M CD on ::-I cr :E r-D, :n E@ 3 GI =3 G') 0 :3 -1 :3 -0 '2' 0 CD 2. 0@1 rD a, a, W -S '+ 0. CD A P--4 W LA V) 0 =r 0 W M -0 0 r_ -0 (D Qj -0 71;z 0 -h C a, -0 -1 @;. -1 -0 rn 0 -S M -0 (1) 01 "1 X i@ :E Ln -n -n -1 2. 0 ;a -1 0 WI M 0 3 N :3 rD -n r+ C. (D -1 CO rD 01 - CD C 0 W a, n CL n 0, =3 0 -1 --1 -1 W S = 2- :3 (D 01 -S .7Z rD :3 M W (D C. W -0 M :3 -1 0 S@ :3 -5 M 0 1< 0 < CT :3 (D M V) rD 0 0 (D rD :3 CD (D -0-4 X.M r) X> r- C3 -1 CD M C-) CD r- ;z M C= C-) C-) V)cc -0 C-) C) C-) CL 'D 0 -S 0 1 ;Z M 01 (D :3 (D W 1- 0. 01 "1U rD 0 131D -8,S0 -D, 0 rD M s 0 O@ I C 0 01 iD (D :3 rD (D :3 (D =5 CV (D :3 :2 ca. -0 -0 CL '+ 0) B :@ a - -n -n 2@ 10 (A CL = C 'n 'n 0- a, V) 'a C+ -1 a, --h a a o rD :3 o =S C-) 1+ :5 1+ - -- -- -1 C-D I (D 0 0 --1 0_0 < 1W a, @It na =1 L@ @m :1 Mca.0 'D 11 0 VC: '3 M 20 V-@01 2. 1. 1 MI+ IrD+ @Q - 0 %@ C) CL 0 CD -3 Ln 0 = _.h a C C) L@ 2. La -' :3 ;)a C-) C: =C (D 1-01 E: a: -1 Oj I CC-/,) Cr rr CL C-) rb -c= =r -=s C-) -0 -0 -1. a Q@ = (D a, 00 cu 1+ :3 a, 0,+ (D a 0 0 =3 0 (D 0 3-1 (D rt 0 -5 < -1 (D -3 -1 CL 0 01 0. 0 @(D -3 r+ (D to -3 - Ln V) rD CL =S CL 0 R C@ -I+ t c+ M 0 0 C+ I+ CL ENERGY SYSTEMS PEP.'IIT Department of Energy Alternative Energy Dev Energy Supplier Weathe Energy Conservation Se 01 0 1 1 0 0101, 0 0 *1 0 1 0 Energy Facilities Siti LAND USE PERMIT Department of Environmen Permit for Activities 0 0 Area Department of Forestry 0 a 00 0 5 0 Permit to Clear Right- Easement (Permanent) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 F: Forest Land 0 0 Permit to Enter Closed *Is 0 0 0 0 0 Special Use Permit Department of Geology & M 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Permit to Drill Geophy -0 Permit to Drill Geothe 0 0 0 0 Permit to Drill New Oi 0 0 0 Permit to Drill Strati Department o f Trans'ortat Parks and Recreation Br 0 0 0 00 0 01 Land Use Chanqes,etc.Ne Ocean Shore Development Ocean Shore Products Re C) U Jul W W I 4P Ocean Shore Pipelines,C Di vision of Lands -G-e-of-h-e-r-m-al--Ex-pTo ra t i on Geothermal Lease on Sta 0 Oil and Gas Exploration 0 Oil, Gas and Sulphur Le Upland Gi': , Cas and' Sulphur Le F and Submeroed-Lands 12 TABLE (Continued) 41 4- E 0 a) S- r- S > 4J 41 U 1 4.1o MM a) - - S- U a) ;@: Q) Z; - E 0- S- CL rt, S SO-1;z a)U 0 S- S- 0-0 S.. M 10 'D U S- >, Qj<0 C 4- a) Qj Cr CL. tn 0 CY > -0 C 2 Q- -0 - - 0 0 (U .@: :3 -, > W141 +1 -0 -0 E 0 0 O.U S- S- 0) tM Mr- U Qj .0 41 -@@ 4@ S-M 41 -- CL S- E E o 0 0 a) CU U 41 a) S- > S- E E E 41 0 -0 0 Uj U S- +-,Lc In U C r- o Z C 4- 0 U41 0 0 >1 E 0) E S- =D V) (U 0 Zj V) j S- CU S- S- S- U 04- = a) 0 = (U CL CLLU S- 0 4S1- 4@ L? S-o -0 > 4@ 41 C-) (Ij > -0 0. 41 00 @a C: S- S.. (U >1 C 2 CL CL 0 = @2 0 LLJ rd r- S.. S- LU V) a- -- U- S- s- C r*,@ 20- :3 o 41 0 M L@ 10 CL CL S S- C- Q) 04-7- 4- -E L.) < 0 4-- CL S- :3 4- -j > C) < C) - -V 0 4@ 0 o V) 0 S- 3ro: E0 00 S- 4-- M , , , = '+'- 0 S eq 4- S- 4- 00 >' 0 4- 00 S 0 +J 4@ 00 4@ 4@ CM W 0 4@ 04- W 10 41 4 41 0 V) L) 4-- U < cu a) a) 0 :D Qj Ln r- 41 4J CIO 41 Q) 41 410 0 =3 <C 2 c-) S- Cr E: cnv) S- .0 m '0 E a S-0- .50 +1 F= = E 41 - 4@ M LU Qj -0 r- S- E E Q1 w n s- C:r Cr 3: L. V) , @; sl_.S- 4@ (0 :6 _S" @; S .- a, W -@ -V Qj s- W 10 -o - a UJ Ic 'I, C1. M M X CU a.W < = a. C@ J) LU :z .0- a. < V FACILITY ASSUMPTIONS Electrical Plants Fossil Fuel Coal (On Coast) 00 0 000 0 00 Gas Turbine 0 0 Noland) Nuclear On Coast 0 q 000 0 0 0 Biomass Co-Generation at 0 0 0 Pulp Mill Biomass Farm on 0 0 0 01 State Forest Direct Solar Central Photovoltaic (Private UplarW) Wind Power Multiple Units (Uplands) Coastal (Hpadlinds) Geothermal ftlands ale 10 100 Hydro 0 19960 JOLQL High Voltage Transmission Existing Corridor New Corridor Oil/Gas Exploration Uplands 00 0 0 Marine Submerged Land 0 0 Oreqon OCS Oil/Gas Production Uplands 0 9 0 State Submerged Lands 0 0 0 Oreqon OCS Oil/Gas Tanker Traffic 'ive Along Coast .Marine Pipeline Landfall at 0 0 0 Existing Port I I I Oil/Gas Port and Deepwater Port 00 000 Terminal Facilities in State Water Deep Draft Port 0 000 0 Tank Farm Dee Draft Port 0 0 0 0 RG Facility 0 Petroleum Refinery At Existing Port 010 .0. O'Shle Gasification Plant Coal Imported From Alaska 00 0 49 0 at Existing Port L 11 1 Geopressurized Gas Aquifer Storage *1 10 10 100 1 100 0 OCS Platform Con-trucfiDIL- -0 OCS Support Base Temporary OLO-Lo Pipeline Permanent -0 01010 0 13 TABLE 1 (Continued) 41 41 41 Ln U 41 aj 0 O'E S- 41 -E W a) o L. 0 0 0- r-> Cr 10 >1 a) C' CD@ -a) = :@ +j 41 L. (A __j a_ -a i Cy 0- 1- : r_ 41 . 0-7 0 a) C = - .- Q) S- 0 *z; 1z IC, U a) S- r- Ln tA 0 100- 41 0 o n S- a U- V) 0 M C) 4- S- cu -@; di W Q-.Q 4j (D - 0 U, C 4@ = CU a) E 0 cr. S- C W S- Ln U.- .0 -j z A r- '0 '0 'A 0 4J C). a 41 > a) Q. C E S- S- eo E U 0 0 0 C1 '0 o - CL 0- CLJ E C CL U 0Ln E E 4ja C-) 01 0 " 11 (Ij 0 .@L L-) LAJ 4 'n S- S--- -C s- -@; -@2 - I L.) 2 1. MS- 41 C 4-- a. U a) 4) (U CU Q) ELn ao S- L. 41 LLJ Ca C1 0 C, = @- @; S- S- L. 0. Q. L. C a) a) cn - >, o a) U >' T 2' cm 4-- 0 a. a. a) a) 10 'a V) S- n C 4- W CU C@, 41 S- 4- o4- A CL '0 LLI ou Q. _Q- M: o 0) 5- - 041- 41 0 0 U 0 41 -- >, 0 S- S- M '0 CU (L' . '0 > (1) CA M (A 4-3 0 4@ S- +1 cm oo S- a) Q) 4@ - Z - 4, 'a > < M 0 W S- CL S.. r- :3: 0 0 4J fU S- L a) 0@ C) Uj (1) S- S- S- 4J 0 CU C M (U S- -0 a) M > 4@ M- ::t E .0 CU Q) '0 4j '0 ro M E 0-"a S- C@. I E r- 0 -E 0 41 - - - - U E E 41 0 S- S- -0 >'C = a) CL lu CD N .0 M ML- Guj LD Cl- CL CL 0- M 0 M 10 (3J 1. al CU W 0 0. co M M M LW LU X: CL (0 Uj LL I -j --I -j -i C1 V) V) = c:r o: CL < 0:: FACILITY ASSUMPTIONS 41 Qj = = CL m 0,0 Electrical Plants Fossil Fuel Coal (On Coast) 0@ 10010 10 0 Gas Turbi-ne- - (Upland) 100*00 Nuclear On Coast 0 Biomass -5-77e-neration at Pulp Mill 0 Biomass Farm on State Forest Direct Solar Central Photovoltaic (Private Upland) Wind Power Multiple Units (Uplands) 0 0 0 Coastal (Headlands) 0 0 Geothermal Uplands 0 9 0 0 0 --Ty-d-ro 1060 0 0 1 1 1 0 High Voltage Existing Corridor Transmission New Corridor Uolands 0 0 0 Oil/Gas Exploration Marine Submerged 0 Land Oregon OCS Oil/Gas Production Uplands 0 0 0 0 0 State Submerged 0 0 0 La ds Orgo on OCS Oil/Gas Tanker Traffic Columbia River Alonq Coa t f Marine Pipeline Landfall at Existing Port 0 0 Oil/Gas Port and yee water Port Terminal Facilities in Mte Water 0 00 * 0 40 0 5e-epDraft Port Tank Farm 00* 0 0 0 0 Deep Draft Port LNG Facility 0400*01 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 Petroleum Refinery At Existi nq 5ort *1* 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 1 0 0 Gasification Plant Coal Importe From Alaska at 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 Existinq Port 10 Geoorp--uri7ed Gas Aquifer Storage 0 0- 0 0 0 0 1 0 OCS Platform Constructio 0 0 09096 0 9 OCS Support Base 0 0 0 -T' 0 0 0 0 Pa %' n' ! ff Pipeline 0 14 The identification of energy facilities is made in several ways: 9 Inventory of existing facilities 9 Ongoing study of likely energy facilities 9 Forecasts of state and regional needs * Permit requirements, public notice, and coordination OCS Task Force Existing facilities in the Oregon Coastal Zone (OCZ) have been inventoried under a contract supported by NOAA/OCZM funds, and are summarized in Table 2. The inventory was conducted by literature review, interviews with knowledgeable public and private officials, and industry contacts. Electrical Generation (Conventional)--Except for several small cogeneration facilities at local and wood products mills, no electricity is generated within the'Oregon Coastal Zone. There is a gas turbine generator at Clatskanie, and a nuclear steam plant near Rainier, both of which are adjacent to the coastal zone in Columbia County. There are several hydroelectric projects under active or semi-active consideration (on the Trask, Coquille, and Illinois Rivers), but no construction. No thermal plant proposals are active, although site suitability studies have been done for coal fired plants. Utilities generally refuse to rule out the possibility of siting major electrical generation plants on the coast. Electrical.Generation (Alternate Sources)--Wind facilities are currently technologically feasible and the coast is recognized as being a high potential area in Oregon. Use of residential to community-sized wind generators on the coast is possible in the near future. Electricity from photovoltaic cells is currently techno- logically feasible but so costly that it would only be used for special applications and at remote sites. Rapid advances may change,this assessment in the near to mid-future. Electric pro- duction from a solar thermal cycleis not likely to be located on the coast. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF EXISTING ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE OREGON COASTAL ZONE Type of Facilities Now Exis,ts-- Specific Plans Important Factors Electrical Plants: Fossil No No Alaskan Coal Import Nuclear No No utilitf-es 'Interest Deferred Biomass Small-Scale Yes Forest Products Market Direct Solar No No Price Ocean Power No No Environmental Constraints Wind Power No R&D by Utilities Price of Machines, Power Geothermal No No Low Potential Hydroelectric No Trask-.Eden Ridge-, Buzzards R:)ost Status of Wild & Scenic Rivers High Voltage Transmission Yes Yes Load Growth in OCZ Qil/Gas Exploration Offshore Yes (finor) State Land nil y OCS Activity Elsewhere t Oil/Gas Exploration Onshore Yes (Minor) Some Leasing'-Ano cipated Ex0ora ccess - No No ependstor'du Djl/Gas Produ on nds Oil/Gas Production Onshore No No Depends on Finds Oil/Gas Tanker Traffic Yes Yes -T-nviron. Consid; Midwest Pipeline(s) Marine Pipeline No No D e p e n Ts- -66-77 f Tin-d s -Ojj/Gas Port, Terminals Yes Yes Oil/Gas Deliv Iternat. LNG Facility -Te -s Yes Avail. of Alaska LNG Yes (PortT-anUy- No nier) Gasification Plant Yes (Rai aeD.ar-easurized Gas OilZGas Pipelines Yes No . .................. c fl OCS Platform Construction No Yes (Brown & Root) 1vity Elsewhere OCS Support Base No No --- OCS Activ-ity "Mo SOURCE: Mathematical Sciences Northwest, Inc., 1978. 16 Production of power from tidal, wave, or ocean thermal energy is not technologically, economically, or environmentally feasible at this time. Geothermal potential in the OCZ is considered very low. Biomass productivity in the OCZ is very high. It is likely that residues from timber production will continue to be utilized for the production of electricity in industrial cogeneration facili- ties. New electric generating facilities burning biomass fuels grown specifically for that purpose are considered less likely. Electrical Transmission--High voltage transmission lines belonging to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) serve local utilities in the OCZ. BPA lines charged at 115 kV and 230 kV are shown in I-lap 1. Seven utility corridors enter the OCZ from the Willamette Valley and the Portland/Columbia County area. Nine local utilities on the coast distribute and sell power bought from BPA or from Pacific Power and Light Company or Portland General Electric Company. Oil/Gas Exploration--Wells drilled onshore in the coastal zone have generally yielded little or no oil and only small amounts of gas have been found. Exploratory drilling has been very limited and the eventual potential in many portions of the OCZ is not known. Geo- logically favorable formations reportedly exist in Coos and Douglas Counties. Offshore drilling on federal and state lease tracts during 1961 through 1969 generally were disappointing, and no pro- duction wells were established. However, prospects are considered fair to good off the coasts of Coos, Douglas and Lane Counties. Present state lands offshore and uplands leasing and explora- tory drilling proposals have been confined to the Columbia River area off Clatsop County. Federal plans for OCS leasing off the Oregon Coast have been shelved indefinitely, due to the limited interest shown during the tract nomination cycle. Oil Transport -The Columbia River currently has some oil tanker and oil barge traffic which supplies crude and refined oil products to Chevron USA facilities at Portland. Crude is delivered to Chevron's asphalt refinery, and refined products are delivered to the Wilbridge Distribution Terminal, where they are stored and then distributed. No expansion in capacity is anticipated. Increased utilization of Alaskan crude at the refinery is likely. The Cascade Energy Company is planning to build a new refinery near Rainier, to be supplied by Alaskan crude brought up the Columbia River on barges or tanker ship. 17 Seaside Lincoln City LEGEND Newport j Substation' (BPA) Nuclear Plant 0 - BPA HV Line - Non-BPA Connection Pacific Power & Light Coos Curry Elec Coop Reedsport North Bend Ll Coos Bay Port Orford MAP I High Voltage Transmission Lines In The Oregon Coastal Zone 18 The GATX Corporation is proposing to build a tanker off-loading, oil storage, and rail transshipment facility at Port Westward, also in Columbia County. This proposal, currently the subject of an EIS by the Army Corps of Engineers, would supply crude oil to Montana or Minnesota refineries. If implemented, the project will increase oil transport on the Columbia River by 76 percent. Oil Refinery -Although no refineries exist in the OCZ, an existing asphalt refinery at Portland (Chevron USA) and a proposed new refinery at Rainier (Cascade Energy Company) may significantly affect the coastal zone. The Chevron refinery receives oil by ship from Alaska and elsewhere; the Cascade refinery would be supplied by barge from Alaska. No other plans for adding refinery capacity are known. Natural Gas--Natural gas is imported overland into the Oregon Coastal Zone. Two natural gas pipelines owned by Northwest Natural Gas Company enter the OCZ from the east, as shown on Map 2. That company serves the Astoria-Seaside and Lincoln City-Newport areas and also operates a small propane delivery system in the Coos Bay area. Northwest Natural Gas Company recently built an LNG storage facility at Newport, which is used to store natural gas in liquid form (LNG) during summer, for use during peak winter demands. Gas for the system is purchased from the Northwest Pipeline Corporation. Northwest Natural Gas Company intends to import LNG from southern Alaska to the Newport facility, and will reportedly seek to build the necessary docks and piping within two years. OCS Support -No OCS support bases exist in the OCZ, and none are likely in the near future given the current lack of OCS activity off the Oregon coast. OCS Platform Construction Facilities--Brown and Root, Inc. has pro- posed.to build an OCS platform construction yard near Warrenton. This proposal is currently in the EIS stage, under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers in Portland. About 1,000 people would be permanently employed at the 200-acre facility, which would produce steel production platforms for use in Alaskan and Californian OCS fields. As part of the same study that generated the existing facili- ties inventory, likely energy facilities we're identified on the basis of existing forecasts of the demand for energy, the existing standards for siting energy facilities, and a matching of facility requirements with physical and biological characteristics of the Oregon Coast to determine suitability. The study also identified the significant effects of these likely facilities on coastal zone resources, and any technical conditions that require siting in the 19 Astoria % 0.6 0 01 e006 00 Newport 006 0 00 Figure 9 Northwest Natural Gas Company System Lines Legend NNG Lines Coos Bay Certificated Service Area A LNG Plant Northwest Pipeline Corporation Oregon Coastal Zone Boundary 20 coastal zone. Both the inventory of existing energy facilities and the study of likely new or expanded energy facilities con- sider those facilities listed in 15 CFR 923.14(d). A third aspect in the identification of likely energy facili- ties is the annual forecast of energy demands and resources prepared by the Oregon Department of Energy (DOE). The 1975 Oregon Legislature stated: It is the goal of Oregon to promote the efficient use of energy resources and to develop permanently sustainable energy resources. The need exists for comprehensive state leadership in energy production, distribution and utilization. It is, therefore, the policy of Oregon: (c) That the basic human needs of every citizen, present and fu-ture, shall be given priority in the allocation of energy resources, commensurate with perpetuation of a free and productive economy with special attention to the preservation and enhancement of environmental quality. (ORS 469.010) In support of this goal (and others), DOE is required by statute to issue an annual energy forecast for the State of Oregon. The forecast shall include .... an estimate of (a) Energy demand and the resources available to meet that demand; and (b) Impacts of conservation and new tech- nology, increased efficiency of present energy facilities, additions to present facilities, and construction of new facilities, on the availability of energy to Oregon. (ORS 469.070) To this end, the forecast incorporates information from the State Energy Conservation Plan. This forecast appears as the Department of Energy's Annual Report, and is supported by the following tech- nical documents: 21 An Energy Demand Forecasting ModeZ for Oregon Energy Consumption and ReZated Data in Oregon: Some HistoricaZ Perspectives Demographic and Economic Forecasts for Oregon Fz4ture EZectricity Prices in Oregon: A Cost-Based AnaZysis Testimony Prepared for Oregon Energy FaciZity Siting CounciZ (EFSC) on PebbZe Springs In addition, each year utilities, petroleum suppliers and coal suppliers must submit energy forecasts to DOE. (ORS 469.070) DOE and industry forecasts for the state, as well as fore- casts for the region prepared by the Northwest Energy Policy Project, the West Group, and the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Com- mittee, are all valuable sources for anticipating energy facilities. A major purpose of the requirement for the identification of energy facilities is to assure consideration of energy facilities as land or water uses having impacts and subject to the coastal management program. This is assured in Oregon as virtually all energy facilities will require a state or federal permit. As discussed above in Policies and Procedures, each public action, including the issuance of a permit, must be evaluated for con- sistency with the OCMP. The mechanisms for doing so are discussed in greater detail below. Finally, because of anticipated Pacific Coast oil and gas lease sales potentially affecting Oregon's coastal resources, and because of the need to present a strong, consolidated state response in a timely fashion to Outer Continental Shelf plans and activities, the Governor in January 1977 issued Executive Order No. EO-77-1 creating an Oregon Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development Task Force. The objectives of the OCS Task Force are: 22 9 To identify and define the state's interest in federal and state OCS waters a To coordinate state input to and review of OCS proposals and projects e To coordinate the state response to specific OCS-related proposals affecting Oregon's coast 9 To recommend a permanent structure within state government for dealing with OCS activities 9 To coordinate Oregon's OCS activities with those in neighboring states This Task Force will terminate at the end of 1978. It and its proposed permanent successor will provide early warning of potential OCS-related energy facilities before facility permits are actually applied for. 2. Procedures for assessing the suitability of sites for such facilities Site suitability in Oregon is determined in several ways: * Coastal resource inventory a Special site suitability studies * Site-specific review of application Inventories of natural and man-made coastal resources were conducted by LCDC's predecessor, the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission. Although a tool for coastal program development, the resource inventories also serve as baseline infor- mation for program implementation. These inventories include: Coastal Wetlands of Oregon Estuarine Resources of the Oregon Coast Historical and Archaeological Resources of the Oregon Coast Fish and WiZdZife Resources Oregon Coastal Zone Freshwater Resources of the Oregon Coastal Zone 23 Visual Resource Analysis of the Oregon Coastal Zone Resource Analysis of Oregon's Coastal UpZands Beaches and Dunes of the Oregon Coast These inventories were used as part of a speci *al study on likely energy facilities described earlier, in two ways: first, the study reviewed the location and distribution of these resources relative to the potential location of new energy facilities in the coastal zone; and second, the study assessed the potential for direct and significant impacts on these coastal resources resulting from the development of energy facilities. The probable suitability of various resource types to accommodate energy facilities was also evaluated, with respect to the statewide land use planning goals. Another special study conducted for Oregon is the 1974 Oregon Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council State-Wide Siting Task Force Report. This council was the predecessor of the Energy Facility Siting Council. One of the duties of the past and present councils is to designate areas of the state that are suitable or unsuitable for nuclear and fossil-fueled thermal power plants of 200 megawatts or greater capacity, and geothermal power plants (ORS 469.470(2)). Other energy facilities may be added to the list but EFSC has not yet done so. The 1974 Task Force Report developed maps showing suitable, less suitable, and unsuitable areas for these facilities based on natural resource areas, meteorology, population, water restrictions, and geology. This report now carries force of admin- istrative rule (OAR 345-40-005 to 040). Construction of the above named facilities will not be permitted in areas designated unsuit- able, unless the applicant can show that the designation was based on insufficient or incorrect information. DOE plans to update the Task Force Report to include evaluation of the suitability of spec- ific sites. (See Maps 3 and 4.) LCDC has within its scope of authority another means of assessing site suitability: it may recommend to the legislature the designation of areas of critical state concern (ORS 197.405(2)). Each such recommendation e Must specify the need for additional state regulations for the area * Must describe existing state and local programs and regulations applicable to the area # Must locate a boundary for the area 24 C T OP C U WA L u TILL _j @GILLIAI c" @p o p ER A K E R E R N T J@ S G R AW T R 0 A N. Ei@k L U R C- uI G c o A @7- -.TH s A EFFII JS"iubll U..,tab MAP 3: Land Use Designations for Nuclear Fuel Power Plant. 25 C T OP 'or W A , rL. U@i TILL r W A S o E @F E R IS o s- COL@ R -W VE S' H LI T E s "T s IIL- M A L H o R A N A K Lm MATH UR Iv- Unsuitabit MAP 4: Land Use Designations for Fossil Fuel Power Plants. 26 9 May include a management plan for the area * May establish permissible use limitations for the area * May designate permissible use standards for the area or establish standards for the issuance of permits regulating specified uses of lands in the area The authority to designate areas of critical state concern rests with the legislature. While it is a potentially powerful tool for managing land use, LCDC has not recommended any such designation, largely because it is presently, and through 1980, will be devoting its re- sources to the review and approval of local comprehensive plans. Site-specific reviews in response to applications for the con- struction of energy facilities are yet another means Oregon uses to assess site suitability. These procedures have been discussed earlier for EFSC and for other permits. EFSC applies a broad range of federal and state standards in assessing site suitability. In addition, EFSC has its own general standards which include the following considera- tions bearing on site suitability: @ Risk of injury to public health and safety * Environmental and socioeconomic impacts 9 Conformance with statewide planning goals and with comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances of political subdivisions (OAR 345-75-010 to 025) EFSC is also developing standards specific to energy facility types. Standards for thermal power plants have been adopted (OAR 345-76-010 to 045), and standards for transmission lines are nearing the hearing stage. - 27 3. Articulation of state policies for managing energy faciZities and their impacts, including a clear articulation of policies regarding conditions that may be imposed on site location and facility development The policy of the State of Oregon is to permit all types of energy facilities in the coastal zone where local plans or the applications of statewide goals find them individually appropriate to the pro- posed site, and where such energy facilities can meet environmental standards set forth in state and federal law or rule. The only exception is to the aforementioned thermal power plants where OAR 345-40-005 through 040 prohibits their location in areas designated unsuitable. (See Maps 3 and 4 for graphic summary of unsuitable areas.) There is no blanket prohibition or systematic discouragement of any class of energy facilities. Broad policy of the Energy Facility Siting Council in managing energy facility impacts is articulated in ORS 469.310: In the interests of the public health and welfare of the people of this state, it is the declared public policy of this state that the siting, con- struction and operation of energy facilities shall be accomplished in a manner consistent with pro- tection of the public health and safety and in compliance with the energy policy and air, water, solid waste, land use, and other environmental protection policies of this state. Siting conditions of EFSC a@e embodied in general and specific standards. EFSC must make a determination that each of its standards is met by an applicant. If they are, then EFSC will approve the application for a site certificate. As stated by the general standards, mandatory findings shall include: 1. There is a need for the facility, based on objective forecasts, and the proposed facility is a prudent method to meet the demand from an economic standpoint, taking into account alternative means of supplying the energy 2. Risk of injury to the public health and safety will be reduced to the maximum extent practicable 3. Adverse impacts on the environment will be reduced to the maximum extent practicable 28 4. Siting, construction and operation of the proposed facility will be carried out in conformance with statewide planning goals and in conformance with local comprehensive land use plans 5. Construction and operation will be conducted so as to avoid adverse impacts upon historic or archaeological sites 6. The applicant has the organizational, managerial and technical expertise to construct, operate and retire the proposed facility 7. The applicant has the financial strength to assure completion, operation and retirement of the facility 8. The applicant has identified socioeconomic impacts of the proposed facility, and the affected area can absorb the projected industrial and population growth result- ing from construction and operation of the facility. (ORS 345-75-025) In addition to these conditions or standards that must bd met in the siting, construction and operation of energy facilities, EFSC has continuing authority over the site for which a certificate is issued, and may inspect the site at any time (ORS 469.430). EFSC also conducts programs to monitor the environmental and ecological effects of thermal power plants (ORS 469.500). Other state agencies involved in.issuing permits directly for energy facilities have their own substantive standards to protect the resources under their jurisdiction. Because these agencies may be numerous, depending on the proposed activity, Appendix,5, State Statutes and Authori-ties, of the OCMP should be consulted. A few of the more likely applicable policies are described here as examples. Legislation establishing Department of Environmental Quality control over air quality states that it is the public policy of the State of Oregon: 9 To restore and maintain the quality of air resources of the state in a condition as free from pollution as is practicable, consistent with the overall public welfare of the state (ORS 468.280) 29 Similarly, for water quality, it is the public policy of the state 9 To protect, maintain and improve the quality of the waters of the state * To provide that no waste be discharged into any waters of this state without first receiving the necessary treatment * To provide for the prevention, abatement and control of new or existing water pollution (ORS 468.710) In both cases, the Environmental Quality Commission may establish standards regulating air quality and emissions and water quality and purity (ORS 468.295 and 468.735). ORS 541.610 establishes policy for the removal of material from the beds and banks of state waters and for the filling of state waters. The Division of State Lands circulates permit applications to affected state and local agencies to determine their interests in the matter. These interests are taken into account by DSL by im- posing conditions on the permit. Also, in determining whether or not to issue a fill permit, DSL must consider: * Whether the proposed fill unreasonably interferes with the paramount policy of this state to pre- serve the use of its waters for navigation, fishing and public recreation * Whether the proposed fill conforms to sound policies of conservation and would not interfere with public health and safety e Whether the proposed fill is in conformance with existing public uses of the waters 9 Whether the proposed fill is consistent with a duly enacted zoning or land use plan for the area where the proposed fill is to take place (ORS 541.625) Any permit issued by DEQ will also specify the conditions for compliance with the rules and standards adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission (ORS 468.065). EFSC, in addition to its standards and those of other state and local agencies, sets forth conditions for the construction and operation of its energy facilities, for the protection of the public health and safety, and for compliance with 30 lawful ordinances of an incorporated city where an energyfacility site is proposed (ORS 469.400). Thus, conditions may be imposed on permits and site certificates to mitigate undesirable impacts and to ensure that agency standards are met. 4. Identification of how interested and affected public and private parties may be involved in the planning process, and a discussion of the means for continued consideration of the national interest, in the planning for and siting of energy facilities that are necessary to meet more than local requirements, after program approval Much of the background to Oregon's response to this requirement is presented in Chapter IV, Processes for Implementing OCMP, and Chapter V, Authorities and Organizations of the OCMP, and should be consulted for further understanding. The lead CZM agency in Oregon is LCDC. Other state agencies, while not surrendering their autonomy, must coordinate their actions with LCDC and the OCMP. This is true of EFSC as well as other regu- latory agencies. The responsibilities of LCDC, local government, and state and federal agencies with respect to coastal resource management and, in effect, energy facility planning for the coastal zone, are listed on Pages 47 and 48 of the OCMP. A key procedure by which public and private parties may be involved in the planning process is coordination. Coordination is carried out in several ways: * County citizen advisory committees and local officials advisory committees for the development of local com- prehensive plans * State agency assistance to local governments in the development of their comprehensive plans 9 Local reviews of state and federal permit applications e Local advisory group to EFSC 9 State agency coordination programs e State permit consistency rule (in draft) 9 Federal consistency requirements 31 Each county must have a program for citizen involvement in preparing, adopting and revising comprehensive plans within the county. This program must provide for a citizen advisory committee (ORS 197.160). In addition, LCDC has appointed a Local Officials Advisory Committee to advise and assist LCDC on its policies and program affecting local governments (ORS 197.165). Each state agency has made provision for participation in the development of local comprehensive plans as needed. Information and technical assistance is provided to local governments. This partici- pation and assistance is described in each State Agency Coordination Program. Each permitting agency, before issuance of a permit, circulates the permit application to affected local governments for review and comment. Comments are taken into consideration in conditioning permits, and if the proposed project is not compatible with local plans, the permit will not be issued. EFSC must designate the governing body of the city or county as a special advisory group in any city or county where a proposed site is located (ORS 469.480). ORS 197.180 requires that state agencies submit to the Depart- ment of Land Conservation and Development, a State Agency Coordination Program. The coordination program must contain: 1. A summary of agency rules and programs affecting land use 2. A program for cooperation and technical assistance to local governments 3. A program for assuring conformance with the goals and compatibility with comprehensive plans 4. A program for coordination with other governmental agencies and bodies (LCDC Administrative Rule adopted 9 December 1977) Each agency program must be approved by DLCD. As of 14 June 1978, all but four programs had been approved. LCDC has also drafted a proposed state permit consistency rule. More information on this rule will be available when it is finally adopted. 32 EFSC has some specific direction to pursue state-federal coordination. As general policy, it is the purpose of EFSC "to exercise the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon to the maximum extent permitted by the United States Constitution and to establish in cooperation with the Federal Government a comprehensive system for the siting, monitoring and regulating of the location, construc- tion and operation of all energy facilities in this state" (ORS 469.310). Specifically, EFSC's standards and rules must take into account rules and regulations of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Energy Administration and their suc- cessors (ORS 469.510). Federal consistency requirements, as set forth in Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, also serve to coordinate federal funding, programs and actions with the OCMP. Memoranda of agreement between federal agencies and A-95 clearinghouses in Oregon include state review of significant federal permits. Federal consistency and the A-95 review process are particularly important to Oregon because federal agencies control nearly 40 percent of the land within the coastal zone boundaries. A study by the Intergovernmental Rela- tions Division, Intergovernmental Coordination: Perils and Poten- tials for Coastal States, should be consulted for more detail about the A-95 process than can be discussed here. In one way or another, the federal government is involved in regulation of most of the energy facilities considered in this study. This regulation may be either direct, as in the role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in licensing nuclear-fueled power plants, or advisory, as in the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service, in re- viewing and approving other agencies' permits (e.g. U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, etc.). Similarly, the federal agencies review and comment on all projects at the local, state or federal level which may affect their resources, jurisdictions, or missions. Some agencies become involved mainly through enforcement of standards or laws governing some attribute of an energy facility (e.g. Occupational Safety and Health Administra- tion enforces safety laws at all facilities). One result of federal action affecting energy facility siting will be the preparation of an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. The EIS then presents another opportunity for intergovernmental coordination and information sharing. For information regarding federal-state consultation (15 CFR 923.51) and full participation (15 CFR 923.55) in the development of the approved OCMP, the reader should review Appendices 8, 9, and 10 of the OCMP. Possible federal involvement in energy facility siting is summarized in Table 3. It should be noted that this table is merely a guide and is not definitive. A more complete summary of federal agency interests can be found in Volume II of this study. TABLE 3 FEDERAL REGULATORY ACTIVITIES FOR ENERGY FACILITIES (n CD W V) V) L" C-) CD Cn U. LD C-) CJ V) U (J CD1 V) V) U a X V) U @! 0- UJ UJ = m < = = W W = LU L' co L@ C) C3 -D Ln (-.) Fossil-Fueled Power Plant P F P A A F F F F A A S S S S E Nuclear Power Plant P F P A A C F F F F A A S S S S E Direct Solar Generating F A A F F F F A S S s S E Biomass Fueled Power Plant P F P A A F F F F A A S S S S E Wind Energy System F A A F F F F A A S S S S E Ocean Power Plant P P A A F S S S S E Hydroelectric Gen. Plant P F P A A F F F F A S S S S E Geothermal Power Plant F P A A P,MF F F F A A S S S S E Hi-Voltage Elect. Trans. Lines P F P A A P F F F F A F S S S S E OCS Survey and Exploration P A A PM F S S S S E Production P A A PJIF A S S S S E Federal Lands O/G Survey & Expl. F P A A PsMF F F F A S S S S E Production F P A A PM F F F F A S S S S E State/Private Lands and Water Survey and Exploration F P A A P F F F F A S S S S E Production F P A A P F F F F A S S S S E Oil Deepwater Ports P P A A S S S S E Marine O/G Pipelines P P A A P S S S S S E Onshore Trunk Pipelines F P A A F F F F S S S S S E Key: Onshore Interst. Pipelines P F P P P A F F F F A A F F A S S S S E P = Permi t Oil Refineries P P A A A M S S S S E F = Permit, Lease, or Onshore O/G/LNG Ports P F P A A F F F F A S S S S S E R-O-W for its land A = Major Approval or LNG Pipelines P F P A A F F F F S S S S S E Clearance Gasification Plants P F P A A F F F F A A S S S S E M = Manages Lease of OCS Platform Yard P A A F F F A A S S S S E Federal Lands OCS Support Bases F P A A A S S S S E C = Consultative Role S = Enforces Standards SOURCE: Booz, Alen and Hamilton, Inc. (1975); Northwest Federal Regional Council (1977); or Laws Resources Planning Associates (1976). E = Distributes and Coordinates EISs 34 Other interested or affected parties to a siting decision may be granted intervenor status in EFSC proceedings, and may be involved through public hearings required for major permits, adoption of local plans and agency rules, and through an LCDC appeals process which will be described below. Consideration of the national interest in the planning for and siting of energy facilities that are of greater than local in- terest, is of key importance to the federal-state relationship estab- lished by the Coastal Zone Management Act. The basic idea is that federal agencies will submit to the requirement that their activities be consistent with an approved state management program, under the condition that the national interest has been given adequate con- sideration in the development of the program, and will continue to be considered during program implementation. Energy facilities of national interest should include, at a minimum, those whose impacts (positive or negative) are more than local or statewide. Thus, facilities which import or export energy resources or products marketed in international commerce, or facili- ties used for transporting or marketing energy resources or products in interstate commerce, would be of national interest. The planning for and siting of these energy facilities, as well as those of less than national interest, is discussed throughout this report. For more general background on consideration of the national interest in the development of the OCMP, Chapter III of the OCMP should be consulted. The planning process must be capable of anticipating and managing the impacts of energy facilities. Consideration of the national interest in anticipating energy facilities is given through consideration of national energy forecasts and interstate plans and programs. The assumptions adopted by the Oregon Department of Energy in its energy demand forecasting are made as consistent as possible with the assumptions adopted by the U.S. DOE. In evaluating energy supply alternatives, the Oregon DOE uses reliability criteria of the West Group Area of the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, which is a subsystem of the area overseen by the Western Systems Coordinating Council. These groups are planning rather than implementing organizations, and they carry no real force. Most, if not all, interstate plans or programs are sponsored by industry rather than government, although the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency, heavily influences the direction of long-range power planning in the northwest states. Continued consideration of the national interest is supported by techniquesfor managing the impacts of energy facilities. Federal agencies have the opportunity to participate as parties to EFSC pro- ceedings, although some natinonal interests are already addressed 35 because EFSC requires coordination with federal standards. For facilities outside EFSC jurisdiction, state and federal agencies which have corresponding responsibilities informally coordinate their activities. For example, the Division of State Lands acts as the state clearinghouse for Army Corps of Engineers dredge and fill permit applications. Similarly, DEQ implements several major EPA programs at the state level, resulting in a correspondence of resource protection interests. Finally, the national interest is considered by the involvement of federal agencies in review and comment on the OCMP and its amendments. 5. Identification of legaZ authorities and management techniques that wiZZ be used to impZement state poZicies and procedures The legal basis for implementing Oregon policies and pro- cedures for the siting of energy facilities has been documented throughout this discussion. However, one important legal process that has not been described is the procedure for appeal of decisions which the appellant believes are contrary to statewide planning goals or local comprehensive plans. Each permitting agency has its own appeals process. These will not be described here as they are included in the statutes for each agency in the OCMP (Appendix 5). EFSC may grant intervenor status to any person,organization, or state or federal agency, who has an interest in the results of the contested case hearing, or who represents a public interest in such results (ORS 469.380). Any such intervenor may appeal EFSC's approval or rejection of an application directly to the Oregon Supreme Court. The petition must be filed within 60 days of the Council decision. LCDC must review: 1. Upon petition by a county, city, special district, or state agency, a comprehensive plan provision or ordinance adopted by any such jurisdiction that the petitioner considers to be in conflict with statewide planning goals 2. Upon petition by a city, county, special district or state agency, a land conservation or development action taken by any such jurisdiction that the petitioner believes to be in conflict with statewide planning goals 36 3. Upon petition by a state agency, city, county, or special district, any county action that the petitioner believes to be improperly taken or out- side the scope of the governing body's authority 4. Upon petition by any person whose interests are substantially affected, a comprehensive plan provision or ordinance that the petitioner believes to be in violation of statewide planning goals (ORS 197.300) The petition must be filed within 60 days of the action. LCDC must base its proceedings solely on the administrative record. Any person or agency whose interests are substantially affected may intervene and be made a party to any such review proceedings, subject to approval of the hearings officer or LCDC (ORS 197.305). LCDC will not review the petition until all normal administrative appeals have been exhausted. Judicial appeal from an LCDC ruling is then permitted. 37 Recommendations Recommendation 1: Legislation should be introduced enlarging the scope of EFSC jurisdiction to include all facilities that store., process, transmitl transport, generate, or otherwise handle energy resources or products in liquid, gaseous or electrical form. EFSC would thus have jurisdiction over oil or gas storage tanks, oil refineries, coal/gas liquefaction plants, oil and gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines, and hydro and thermal electric generating plants. These facilities should be defined to include geothermal, wind and solar power production, but to exclude waste heat applications such as district heating from manufacturing processes. Limitations should be placed on size of facility to insure that the EFSC does not become overburdened. This recommendation would strengthen a centralized one-stop process for energy facility planning, and clarify the responsibility for a lead decision-making agency. Recommendation 2: Pursuant to ORS 197.400, the LCDC should designate as activities of statewide significance major energy-reZated industrial faciZities such as platform fabrication yards, pipe-coating yards, and OCS pro- duction support facilities, which will seriously affect land use in the coastal zone. These activities do not have the same health and safety implica- tions as do facilities which store, process, transmit/transport, or generate energy, yet do-have significant land use and socioeconomic impacts in the coastal zone, a fact which has been given recognition by the inclusion of these activities in OCZM's list of energy facilities which must be a part of the planning process. The immediate effect of this recommendation would be to require the developer of an energy- related industrial facility to apply to LCDC for a permit. LCDC has placed a priority in the near future on acknowledgment of compliance of local plans. Thus the feasibility of this recommenda- tion rests on a recognition that it will not be acted upon before 1980. However, the reality of current U.S. OCS exploration plans is that no lease sales for the Pacific Northwest OCS will occur before 1980. However, LCDC should not postpone action on this recommendation until a lease sale takes place, because land options are exercised and develop- ment may occur before firm exploration plans are set--vip,., the platform fabrication yard proposed by Brown and Root at Warrenton. 38 Recommendation 3: The Energy Facility Siting Council should designate areas within the state that are suitable or unsuitable for facilities that store, process, transmit1transport, generate., or otherwise handle energy resources or products in Liquid, gaseous, or electrical form. This designation would then be a companion to the 1974 Task Force Report on Thermal Power Plant Siting. There are two ways to accomplish this. First, EFSC presently has the authority to undertake such a designation for "each additional type of energy facility for which the council determines such designations are necessary" (ORS 469.470(2)(c)). Thus the council, by its own initiative, could achieve the recommended result. However, it is unclear from the statute whether or not EFSC's discretion extends to energy facilities not now within its jurisdiction. Implementation of Recommendation 1 would remove this question. Alternatively, the statute could be amended to direct EFSC to make suitable or unsuitable designations for all such facilities described in the recommendation. Presently, ORS 469.470 charges EFSC with designation of areas that are suitable or unsuitable only for nuclear and fossil-fuel thermal power plants and geothermal power plants, and grants EFSC discretion for additional types of energy facilities, as noted above. Maintaining this flexibility may be desirable to control EFSC's workload, but the effect is to postpone planning that could be helpful to the energy facility siting process. Recommendation 4: LCDC should identify areas of critical state concern and i to the Legislature that they be recognized as such. recommend This task might appear to duplicate the site suitability studies recommended to EFSC. However, the EFSC site suitability studies, if similar to those reported in 1974 for thermal power plants, are relatively general and are based on a limited number of criteria. Areas of critical state concern should be identified by unique or valuable resources which the state wishes to protect. LCDC's recom- mendations and the legislature's designation would thus complement work by EFSC. This effort would be especially useful in aiding the state's response to OCS tract nominations. In particular, areas of critical state concern (including water areas out to the three-mile limit) could be used for negative nominations--areas the state feels should not be leased because of the proximity to some valuable fishery or unique species. Also in the event of OCS development, designation of areas of critical state concern could be used to 39 influence, if not control, the location of marine pipelines and support facilities. The impacts from those can be substantial,, yet they would not be covered by EFSC site suitability studies. Recommendation 5: The States of Oregon and Washington shouZd estabZish formaZ mechanisms for coordinating energy faciZity pZanning. Oregon and Washington are perhaps not the only states where energy facility planning should be coordinated, but there are several unique reasons why coordination between Oregon and Washington should be emphasized. The Columbia River is an important common resource for electricity production and power plant cooling; the two states share a petroleum products pipeline and common pressures for coastal energy ports; and the purpose of this study is to focus on energy planning for the coastal zone, which is contiguous. Coordinating mechanisms should include efforts to develop common policies, early notification of energy facility applications, and regular information transfer. Mechanisms for coordinating a response to OCS activity are discussed in another recommendation. Coordination between the two states is complicated by the fact that energy facility planning responsibilities are divided among several agencies, especially in Oregon. This complication could be relieved if Recommendation 1 were implemented. The development of common policy presents the most difficulty because of different political perspectives. However, it also presents the opportunity of showing a common set of rules to prospective applicants for site certification. For example, joint development of regional energy forecasts, to be used in generic studies of the need for the facility, would effectively shorten the debate that now accompanies each pro- posed facility. Common environmental and siting standards would be less confusing to applicants and perhaps avoid a concentration of facilities in one state. Alternative site banking could be examined for its appropriateness to the two states. These are examples of subjects that could be addressed through common policy development. An early warning of each state'-s siting activity would be useful to permit the representation of neighboring states' interests in the early critical stages. A first step in establishing an early warning system would be to identify who should be notified in the neighbor state. Regular information transfer, by providing documents in thesiting process, could be established as a courtesy without requiring neighbor states to become a formal party to the proceedings. 40 Presently, some coordination occurs through an ad hoc inter- state committee. However, representation is limited to two siting councils, which are restricted in scope. The siting councils, Plus wider representation of siting interests, could be directed by the governors to meet once annually to review the status of applications. Additional meetings could be called by either state to discuss special problems. Alternatively, the new Regional Energy Advisory Board, established by the Pacific Northwest Regional Commission, could be used to focus interstate cooperation. This Regional Energy Advisory Board would have to draw upon the siting expertise of the councils, so it is likely the same people would be involved in either case. Recommendation 6: An interstate OCS Task Force for Oregon, Washington and California should be established to study and prepare for potential OCS tract Leasing. California should be included in this task force because Oregon may feel some impacts of a northern California lease sale; because northern California, Oregon and Washington share general geological characteristics; and because California has some experience in repre- senting state interests in what is essentially a federal process-- experience from which Oregon can benefit. Although Oregon OCS acti- vi'ty appears unlikely in the near future, that is precisely the reason why anticipatory planning should begin now, in a rational climate@ There is still time to develop policies and procedures for responding to a call for nomination. In 1977, Governor Straub responded to a U;S. Department of Interior request for comment on a proposed lease schedule by stating: "Oregon has not as yet identified possible multiple use conflicts [in the lease area]" and "Oregon has not yet identified areas of critical environmental concern..." The Task Force should consider ways to develop a strong response which should include mapping critical areas or valuable resources. The Task Force should also address how to present a common interstate front to the development of onshore support facilities to ensure that development is planned, rather than simply accommodated. For more 'detailed OCS recommendations, the reader should consult a report by the University of Oregon School of Law, Ocean Resources Law Program, entitled Development of Petroleum Resources From the Outer Continental Shelf: Management Problems and Capabilities in Oregon (Praliminary Draft). 36 6800001 1215