[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
ENCLOSURE K Ener In The Oregon oas a one VOLUME N t,,,.lKELIH00D OF @ENERGY FACILITY SITING . . .......... . .. AMR gy F t lz TD 195 @B5 H65 1978 And V-2 ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE OREGON COASTAL ZONE PART II LIKELIHOOD OF ENERGY FACILITY SITING Property of CSC Library U. S- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERV1CLPQ1 CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 Principal Investigator Michael G. Harlow Senior Environmental Scientist Mathematical Sciences Northwest, Inc. C-- 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" %AJ 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.; :ioward 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: Artist rendering of a 200-foot high three-mega wact exr>erimental wina turiDine. courtesy of Southern Calilornia Edison. PREFACE Energy Facilities in the Oreg n 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 Objectives and Methods 1 Contents of Report 1 Facility Types 2 EXISTING, FORECAST, AND PLANNED FACILITIES 3 Methodology 3 Electrical Generation 3 Existing Facilities 3 Utilities 3 Generation 3 Transmission 3 Facility Expansion and New Facilities 8 Electrical Energy Forecasts 8 High Voltage Transmission Lines 8 Electrical Generating Plants 10 Nuclear 12 Fossil Fuels 13 Conventional Hydroelectric Generation 16 Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Generation 20 Small-Scale Hydroelectric Generation 24 Biomass 24 Direct Solar 25 Ocean Power 26 v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Geothermal Power 26 Wind Energy 26 Oil and Gas 34 Existing Facilities 34 Onshore 34 Offshore 34 Marine Pipelines 34 Tanker Traffic 34 Oil/Gas Ports, Terminals 34 Natural Gas 35 Liquified Natural Gas 35 Petroleum Refining 37 Geopressurized Gas 37 Oil Pipeline 37 OCS Platform Construction Yards 37 OCS Support Bases 37 Forecasts 37 Oil and Gas Facility Expansion and New Facilities 38 Onshore 138 Offshore 38 Tanker Traffic 38 Oil/Gas Ports and Terminals 38 Natural Gas Pipelines 41 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Petroleum Refineries 41 Coal Gasification 41 OCS Platform Fabrication Yards 43 OCS Support Bases 43 NEED TO LOCATE IN THE OREGON COASTAL ZONE 45 Introduction 45 Discussion of Factors 45 Conclusions 46 IMPACTS, STANDARDS AND SUITABILITY 48 Introduction 48 Summary of Significant Impacts 48 Site Suitability 51 Designation of Suitable Areas 51 EFSC 51 Other State Agencies 52 General Suitability Standards 58 Agricultural Lands 59 Forest Lands 59 Recreation Sites 59 Cultural and Historic Sites 60 Natural Areas 60 Scenic Areas and Open Space 62 Hazardous Areas 64 Energy Production Sites 67 Air and Water Quality 67 vii PERMITS PAG E STATE PERMITS 69 FEDERAL PERMITS 69 Introduction 69 Recent Studies 69 Regulatory Roles 73 Agency Interests 74 Regulatory Activities 77 viii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Energy Facilities Considered in This Study 2 2 Utilities Serving the Coastal Zone 5 3 Inventory of BPA Facilities in the Oregon Coastal 7 Zone 4 Reported Plans for New and Expanded High Voltage 9 Lines 5 Reported Interests in Siting Electrical Generation 11 Facilities in the OCZ 6 Developed and Undeveloped Hydroelectric Generation 17 in Oregon's Coastal Rivers 7 Potential Pumped Storage Sites in the Oregon Coastal 22 Zone 8 Major Site Evaluation Factors for Hydroelectric 23 Generation 9 Wind Energy Study Locations in the Oregon Coastal 30 Zone 10 Factors Requiring Oregon Coastal Zone Location 47 11 Summary of Energy Facility Impacts 50 12 EFSC Siting Criteria for Electrical Generating 54 Plants 13 Energy Facility Related Managerial and Proprietary 55 Interests of State Agencies 14 Estuary Classifications 57 15 Estuary Suitability for Energy Facilities 57 16 Natural Resources Covered by State-Wide Goals 58 17 Relationship of Energy Facilities to the Water 61 18 Suitability of Energy Facilities in Coastal 63 "Image Regions." ix LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 19 Relative Impact of Hazards on Various Types of 65 Land Uses 20 Relative Impact of Geologic Hazards on Energy 66 Facilities 21 Likely Needed State Permits 70 22 Federal Regulatory Activities for Energy 78 Facilities x LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Electrical Utility Service Areas in the Oregon Coastal Zone 4 2 High Voltage Transmission Lines in the Oregon 6 Coastal Zone 3 Land Use Designations for Nuclear Fuel Power Plant 14 4 Water Use Policy in the Oregon Coastal Zone 19 5 Diagram of a Pumped-Storage Project 20 6 Potential Pumped Storage Sites in the Oregon Coastal Zone 21 7 Known Geothermal Resource Areas in the Pacific Northwest 27 8 Wind Power Study Sites in the Oregon Coastal Zone 31 9 Northwest Natural Gas Company System Lines 36 10 Proposed OCS Planning Schedule 39 11 Principal Coal Gasification Reactions and Reactor Types 42 12 Land Use Designations for Fossil Fuel Power Plant 53 xi INTRODUCTION The 1976 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act require that Oregon identify the energy facilities likely to locate in or significantly affect the Oregon Coastal Zone (OCZ). An extremely broad spectrum of facility types are to be con- sidered: Any equipment or facility which is or will be used primarily in the exploration of or the deve- lopment, production, transfer, processing, or trans- portation of, any energy resource; or for the manu- facture, production or assembly of equipment, machi- nery, products, or devices which are involved in these activities . . . OBJECTIVE AND METHODS The objective of Task 1 was to examine the likelihood that existing energy facilities will expand operations and that new facilities will seek to locate in or affecting the OCZ. This has been accomplished through examination of existing and planned facilities, energy forecasts, existing standards regulating siting and operation of facilities, and the general suitability of the coast for the various types of facilities. During this evaluation, the significant impacts of facilities and the necessity that they be located only in the Oregon Coastal Zone was examined and documented. Finally, the permits which would be required for siting or operation have been determined. CONTENTS OF REPORT The evaluation of likelihood of facility siting is documented in this report. Report organization is as follows: Existing facilities, forecasts, and planned facilities Need to locate in the Coastal Zone Impacts, standards and suitability Permits An executive summary of this report is available as a separate volume. 2 FACILITY TYPES This investigation considered the 23 types of energy facilities shown in Table 1. Each is described in more detail in the following section of this report. At the outset of this study, it was decided that one type of facility--uranium fuel processing and enrichment plants--was extremely unlikely to be proposed for siting in or near the OCZ; this facility was not analyzed further. All of the other facilities are sufficiently likely that more extensive analysis was warranted. Table 1 Energy Facilities Considered in this Study Electrical Plants: Fossil Nuclear Biomass Direct Solar Ocean Power Wind Power Geothermal Hydroel ectri c High Voltage Transmission Oil/Gas Exploration Offshore Oil/Gas Exploration Onshore Oil/Gas Production Offshore Oil/Gas Production Onshore Oil/Gas Tanker Traffic Marine Pipeline Oil/Gas Port, Terminals LNG Facility Petroleum Refinery Gasification Plant Geopressurized Gas Oil/Gas Pipelines OCS Platform Construction OCS Support Base EXISTING, FORECAST, AND PLANNED FACILITIES METHODOLOGY The best source of information about future expansion of existing plants is their owners. The first step in this study, therefore, was to inventory existing and proposed facilities, and to contact the managers of these facilities to discuss expansion plans. Other industry representatives, as well as regulatory personnel at the state and federal level, were also contacted. Existing forecasts relevant to each facility type, or contacts with knowledgeable experts, were then used to complete the evaluation of pressures leading to siting or expansion applications. ELECTRICAL GENERATION Existing Facilities Utilities--The Oregon Coastal Zone is served by five electrical cooperatives, one municipal utility, three people's utility districts, and two investor owned utilities (IOU), as shown in Table 2. Service areas are shown in Figure 1. All electrical utilities serving the coastal zone were contacted to obtain information concerning their existing service area boundaries, distribution facilities, and generation facilities. Each utility was also asked about their future plans for new or upgraded transmission lines, substations, and generation facilities in the Oregon Coastal Zone. Generation--Except for small amounts of power generated from wood waste at forest products facilities (and consumed on-site), all electricity used in the OCZ is imported from generating facilities elsewhere in the region. No large-scale electrical generation facilities exist in the OCZ and none are currently under construction. Transmission--Transmission lines enter the OCZ from the East at various locations and traverse the coastline north- south, generally paralleling U.S. Route 101. As shown on Figure 2, the majority of the transmission lines are owned by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) (see also Table 3) and are energized at 230 kV or 115 kV. Pacific Power and Light and the Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative also have high voltage transmission lines along the coast. The local utilities distribute this power within their service areas, using lower voltage distribution lines. 4 Seaside PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT CO PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO Forest CONSUMERS POWER INCORPORATED WEST OREGON ELEC. COOP. 'Grove CLATSKANIE PUD TILLAMOOK PUD McMinnville LANE CO. ELEC. COOP. DOUGLAS ELEC COOP COOS-CURRY ELEC COOP BLACHLY-LANE CO COOP Lincoln city CENTRAL LINCOLN PUD Newport Reedsport X..z ,17 North Bend Coos Bay Bandon e,:* WX .. ......... .... . .... Port Orford ................... ... ... .... . ...... Figure 1. Electrical Utility Service Areas in the Oregon Coastal'Zone. 5 TABLE 2 UTILITIES SERVING THE COASTAL ZONE UTILITY OFFICE ADDRESS Blachly-Lane County Co-Op Electric 90680 Highway 99 Association Eugene, Ore. 97402 Consumers Power, Inc. PO Box 1108 Corvallis, Ore 97330 Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative, PO Box 460 Inc. Coquille, Ore. 97423 Douglas Electric Cooperative, Inc. PO Box 1327 Roseburg, Ore 97470 Portland General Electric 121 SW Salmon Street Portland, Ore 97204 Central Lincoln PUD 255 SW Coast Highway Newport, Ore 265-5335 Clatskanie PUD 423 Nehalem Street PO Box 216 Clatskanie, Ore 97016 Tillamook PUD 1115 Pacific Avenue PO Box 433 Tillamook, Ore 97141 Bandon, City of PO Box 67 Bandon, Ore 97411 West Oregon Electric Cooperative, 715 Maple Street Inc. PO Box 69 Vernonia, Ore 97064 6 Seaside Lincoln City LEGEND Newport A Substation (BPA) Nuclear Plant BPA HV Line Non-BPA Connection Pacific Power & Light Coos Curry Elec Coop Reedsport North Bend Coos Bay LI I Port Orford Figure 2. High Voltage Transmission Lines in the Oregon Coastal Zone. 7 TABLE 3 INVENTORY OF BPA FACILITIES IN THE OREGON COASTAL ZONE SUBSTATIONS Clatsop Substation Garibaldi Substation Hebo Substation Beaver Substation Wendson Substation Tahkenitch Substation Trask Substation Rogue Substation North Bend Maintenance Headquarters RADIO STATIONS Wilson River Radio Station Cape Blanco Radio Station Mt. Hebo Radio Station Kenyon Mountain Radio Station Mary's Peak Radio Station Gardiner Ridge Radio Station Goodwin Peak Radio Station Blue Ridge Radio Station Winchester Bay Radio Station Johnson Peak Hydromet Leneve Radio Station TRANSMISSION LINES Longview-Astoria Lane-Wendson Allston-Driscoll Reston-Fairview Nos. I and 2 Allston-Clatsop Toledo-Wendson Keeler-Tillamook No. I Tahkenitch-Wendson Nos. 1 and 2 Carlton-Tillamook Tahkenitch-Reedsport Santiam-Toledo Reedsport-Fairview, and Coos Tap Lane-Tahkenitch Fairview-Bandon Nos. 1 and 2 Bandon-Gold Beach Nos. 1 and 2 SOURCE: BPA Office of Information 8 Facility Expansion and New Facilities Electrical Energy Forecasts--Enerq demand forecasts for ___T_ gy the State DOE, 1978) do not allow separate examination of the projected electricity use in the Oregon Coastal Zone. All utilities serving the coastal zone anticipate increases in their loads over time as coastal areas continue to urbanize. (An inventory of development pressures in the coastal zone prepared by OCC&DC- in 1975 indicated that developable land is generally available for urbanization.) Total electrical demand for the state is projected to grow at an average 2.3 percent annual rate over the next twenty years, and demands in the coastal zone may or may not be proportionate to this figure. The primary unknowns are whether or not local utilities will seek to site generation facilities in the zone to meet this load growth, and whether or not regional electrical interests will seek to put plants there to meet regional load growth. High Voltage Transmission Lines--Loads are concentrated along the coast, and load growths are expected to occur in the towns along Route 101. All area utilities expect to gradually upgrade their distribution systems as new customers are added. This means a number of new substations and trunk lines are planned, but exact dates for installation are generally unavailable due to load growth uncertainties. At this time, BPA is encouraging individual utilities to take over operation of lines smaller than 230 V, and some utilities are now planning to acquire and refurbish some of the existing BPA:transmission facilities along the coast. (CH2M Hill, 1977) When the growing loads exceed existing transmission capacity, larger or additional transmission lines will need to be brought in from the East. All such lines are expected to use existing corridors. TABLE 4 REPORTED PLANS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED HIGH VOLTAE LINES Planned New utility Planned New HV Lines Substations Central Lincoln PUD Newport Area (69 kV) Newport; Glasgow Clatskanie PUD None None Tillamook PUD Hebo-Neskowin (115 kV) (near future) To service new HV lines Mohler-Tillamook-Hebo (115 kV) (long range) I Blachley-Lane County Coop None reported Near Blachley (1990's) Consumers' Power, Inc. Simpson Creek-Siletz (115 kV) Siletz (1985); Bayview (1978) Coos-Curry Coop None None Douglas County Elect. Coop None None Western Oregon Elect. Coop None None Bandon None None Portland General Electric None reported None reported Pacific Power and Light No specific plans reported, but expect None reported eventual expansion of some existing N-S HV lines Bonneville Power Admin. None reported None T SOURCE: MSNW interviews with utility representatives. 10 None of the utilities now plans to develop major new high voltage transmission l1ne corridors, since anticipated load growth can be served by existing or upgraded existing facilities. However, if new generating plants are built, new transmission corridors could be required. Several new substations are planned for immediate or future location in areas of rapid growth; some of these will require that new service lines be routed over short distances. Table 4 summarizes utilities' plans for additional high voltage lines. Electrical Generating Plants--Utilities retailing power in the OCZ obtain wholesale power from BPA or the two major investor-owned utilities (PP&L, PGE). All plan to continue this relationship. BPA has recently issued Notices of Insufficiency to its customers, including public utilities and cooperatives serving the coastal zone. All of these utilities, consequently, are examining new sources. The cooperatives, for example, have joined other cooperatives in the region to form the Pacific Northwest Generating Corporation, and are actively looking to purchase generation (Drake, pers. communication). There is some interest in developing electrical generation facilities in the OCZ, as summarized in Table 5. The following sections discuss in greater detail the situation for each type of electric generating facility. TABLE 5 REPORTED INTERESTS IN SITING ELECTRICAL FACILITIES IN THE OCZ Principal Source Interest in Developing utility of Power OCZ Power Facilities Central Lincoln PUD BPA None reported Clatskanie PUD BPA Wants to develop wood waste cogeneration at Wauna Tillamook PUD BPA Interested in cogeneration; supports wind power R&D Blachley-Lane Co-op BPA None reported Consumers' Power, Inc. BPA None reported Coos-Curry Co-op BPA Hydropower project on Illinois River, supports wind R&D Douglas Electric Co-op BPA None reported Western Oregon Co-op BPA Non2 reported Bandon BPA None reported Portland General Electric Owns and Developing wood waste cogenera- participates tion arrangements. Site suit- in thermal, ability studies for coal, hydro nuclear and hydro plants in OCZ Pacific Power and Light Owns and par- Developing wood waste cogenera- ticipates in tion; participation in site thermal and suitability for coal, nuclear hydro and hydropower plants Washington Public Power BPA, Site suitability studies for Supply System participates coal, nuclear plants in other sources SOURCE: MSNW interviews with utility representatives 12 Nuclear--Siting of nuclear power plants is a closely regulated, highly visible and often controversial process. Environmental and socioeconomic questions are usually studied in great depth prior to granting of the many licenses needed to bring such a plant on line. The Oregon Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council established standards for siting nuclear plants in Oregon, and developed maps of suitable and unsuitable areas based on four criteria: presence of natural resource areas, proximity to major popula- tion centers, land suitability for agriculture, and geologic hazards. Using these criteria, the council classified the coastal region north of the Coos-Curry county line as generally suitable (ONTEC, 1974). Many local portions of the coast are unsuitable due to proximity of population centers and natural resource areas. Figure 3 shows the classification patterns for the entire state. Because of the high costs for nuclear plants, only large utilities and utility groups will be involved in siting applica- tions. A study concluded in 1975 for the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) surveyed all of the Oregon Coastal Zone along with the entire State of Washington, northern Oregon, and northern Idaho (Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, 1977). Twelve candidate sites were identified for future consideration if additional power plants are required to meet power needs of the region. One site was near the town of Knappa in Clatsop County. Previous to this study, Portland General Electric studied several sites along the Oregon Coast, but has recently in- dicated that their main interest at present ;s in gettinq the Boardman and Pebble Springs plants on-stream (Howser, pers. comm.). The Eugene Water and Electric Board has also announced that it has abandoned interest in the Big Creek site near Florence (PNW River Basins Commission, 1975). 13 Standards established by EFSC require that (among other things) the need for power be demonstrated in order to justify site certification. Recent testimony by the State Department of Energy at hearings for the Pebble Springs plants indicates that if all plants in the region now having construction permits are built, additional generation will not be needed until 1995-95. Under projected economics, DOE estimates indicate that coal plants would be a cheaper way to meet demands occurring after that date. Given these considerations, the likelihood that a nuclear power plant would be sited in the OCZ is low to medium. Fossil Fuels--The only coal resources of any note in the Oregon Coastal Zone are in the Coos Bay area and near Eden Ridge. The Coos Bay subbituminous deposits have moderate heating value (<10,000 Btu/lb) and low sulfur (<l%), but present estimates are that mineable coal is less than 60 million tons (DGMI, 1975). Some 50 million tons of reserves at Eden Ridge are owned by Pacific Power and Light. Concerning the Coos Bay reserves, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (1975) has concluded: Potential future use of the coal for power is local and small in scale. For development to proceed, several obstacles will have to be overcome, inclu- ding overlapping ownership, economic constraints, and the need for supporting transportation and water systems. Environmental considerations in the Coos Bay area include air and water pollution and use restrictions in the South Slough Sanctuary which limit possible future mining to certain areas and under strict conditions. 14 C 0. -Z M-1 n C u d R W 1. L 0 a, ORRO U TILL C-1. N N 0 N 0 p t A RSON HEELER COLN R AW T A K E R r .,ft C A N. U G L C-.o. s, M A L H U R A K E --z A s EPHI E .1 i Suitable SOURCE: EFSC Unwitable Figure 3. Land Use Designations for Nuclear Fuel Power Plant. 15 There are sizeable low sulfur coal reserves in southern Alaska, however, which could be imported by ship as a slurry for use in coal-fired electricity generating or coal gasifica- tion plants in the OCZ. (Anderson, 1978). Locally mined coal could supplement the imported coal if the plants were located in the Coos Bay area. This type of project would be competing with nuclear and coal-fired plants elsewhere in Oregon and in the Northern Great Plains. These plants use strip-mined coal which is rail-hauled from Wyoming. Recent studies indicate Alaskan coal would be competitive with rail-hauled plains coal on the Pacific coast (Hennagin, 1978). Besides the economics of coal-fired generation, major environmental questions would have to be resolved. The main question would be where to put the plants; the second would be whether air quality regulations could be met. Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) recently completed reconnaisance surveys of the entire Pacific Northwest for coal plant sites, but completely abandoned further study of sites on the coast because of the hilly topography to the east. The presence of high ground east of a plant would make it impossible to meet air quality standards where the plume intersected the ground (Waddell, pers. comm.). Given these considerations, the likelihood that a coal- fueled electrical generating plant would be sited in the OCZ is low. Portland General Electric operates a combustion turbine generating plant near Clatskanie, consisting of six industrial- type units with peaking capability of about 614 MW. Fuel oil for this plant is offloaded from tankers at Port Westward, on the Columbia River. Combustion turbines are used only for peaking power, since their fuel costs make the power very expensive compared to other sources. If area utilities do experience peaking shortfalls which cannot be met by other 16 sources of generation, installation of combustion turbines may be their response. Because these 'Units are not prohibitively expensive to buy and can be licensed and constructed relatively quickly, they provide an attractive option for small utilities. Depending on the outcome of regional power redistribution and new source construction, the likelihood of siting combustion turbines in the OCZ is medium. Conventional Hydroelectric Generation--Hydroelectric power is the traditional backbone of th@ -Pacific Northwest Power Supply System. Dams on Oregon coastal rivers (all of them outside the coastal zone boundaries) supply over 1.5 billion kWh annually (Federal Power Commission, 1976). Over 6.9 billion kWh per year of potential hydropower remains undeveloped in the Nehalem, Umpqua, Rogue and other basins (ibid.). Developed and potential hydropower sites in coastal river basins are listed in Table 6. Economic and environmental constraints make many of the hydropower sites unfeasible. Factors used to evaluate sites are listed in Table 8. For coastal rivers, environmental limits, especially effects on anadromous fisheries, rank of great importance. While many potential sites are known on coastal rivers, active consideration for development is limited to the Buzzards Roost (Illinois River), Ginger Peak and Trask (Trask River) sites at this time. The entire Illinois River, however, is now under study for designation as a National Wild and Scenic River, and the Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative is awaiting that decision prior to initiating further study of their dam site at Buzzards Roost. Designation of portions of the Rogue River as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System has precluded development of 100 MW, or 430 million KWH annually (PNW River Basin Commission, 1977). The situation is complicated by the many water use conflicts which occur in the Oregon Coastal Zone due to the seasonal variations of surface water, the expanding demands of water consumers, the high value of the anadmmous fishery, and extensive 17 TABLE 6 DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED HYDRO-POWER IN OREGON'S COASTAL RIVERS DEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED DRAINAGE AND OWNER RIVER RIVER BASIN INSTALLED AVERAGE INSTALLED AVERAGE PLANT OR SITE CAPACITY 2 ANNUAL CAPACITY 2/ ANNUAL KW GENERATION KW GENERATION 1,000 KWH 1,000 KWH NORTH PACIFIC MAJOR DRAINAGE Oregon Coastal Drainage NEHALEM RIVER BASIN STONEHILL NEHALEM 9,000 38,000 NEHALEM FALLS NEHALEM 18,000 30,000 WAKEFIELD NEHALEM 13,000 53,000 SLAMONBERRY NEHALEM 30,000 85,000 SPRUCE RUN NEHALEM 17,000 73,000 ELSIE NEHALEM 25,000 130,000 102,000 464,000 MINOR RIVER BASINS CEDAR CREEK. WILSON 18,000 96,000 GINGER PEAK TRASK 9,500 43,000 TRASK TRASK 76,000 108,000 CLEAR CREEK N FK TRASK 5,330 13,000 BLAINE NESTUCCA 15,000 70,000 EUCHRE CREEK SILETZ 14,200 117,000 SUNSHINE CREEK SILETZ 20,800 150,000 THE FALLS SILETZ 20,000 100,000 TIDEWATER ALSEA 10,000 35,000 SCOTT MOUNTAIN ALSEA 40,000 200,000 TRIANGLE LAKE LAKE CR 51000 35,000 AUSTA SIUSLAW 30,000 79,000 LOW MAPLETON SIUSLAW R. 38,000 100,000 SWISSHOME SIUSLAW R. 53,000 139,000 TRIANGLE LAKE LAKE CR, SIUSLAW 17,000 44,000 UPPER SIUSLAW SIUSLAW R. 36,000 74,000 AUSTA (NEW) SIUSLAW R. 30,000 79,000 407,830 1,423,000 UMPQUA RIVER BASIN 12 RB NO 1 SMITH 5,400 24,000 LOON LAKE DIVR MILL CR 6.500 54,000 SCOTTSBURG UMPQUA 38,100 290,000 KELLEYS SMITH FY UMPQUA 30,800 240,000 KELLOGG UMPQUA 23,500 196,000 WOLF CREEK UMPQUA 37,000 300,000 WINCHESTER N UMPQUA 13,400 89,000 OAK CREEK N UMPQUA 11,300 86,000 HORSHOE BEND N UMPQUA 14,000 98,000' GLIDE N UMPQUA 9,000 62,000 ROCK CREEK N UMPQUA 51,000 263,000 BOUNDARY N UMPQUA 94,000 216,000 STEAMBOAT N UMPQUA 16,300 113,000 COPELAND DIV N UMPQUA 24,200 175,000 SODA SPRINGS PAC PWR & LT N UMPQUA 11,000 71,900 SLIDE CREEK PAC PWR & LT N UMPQUA 15,000 105,700 FISH CREEK PAC PWR & LT N UMPQUA 11,000 62,300 TOKETEE PAC PWR & LT N UMPQUA 42,500 261,000 CLEARWATER NO 2PAC PWR & LT CLEARWAT. 26,000 67,000 CLEARWATER NO 1PAC PWR & LT CLEARWAT 15,000 56,800 LEMOLD NO 2 PAC PWR & LT N UMPQUA 33,000 237,000 LEMOLD NO 1 PAC PWR & LT N UMPQUA 29,000 181,000 LAKE CREEK NOI LAKE CR 5,000 13,000 RIDDLE DIVERS. S UMPQUA 5,800 44,000 TILLER DIVERS S UMPQUA 6,200 40,000 DAYS CREEK CORPS OF ENGIN S UMPQUA 44,000 1 19-5-,560 1,04-2,700 39-5-,500 7-,,- OT, -00 0 18 TABLE 6 (Continued) DEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED DRAINAGE AND OWNER RIVER INSTALLED AVERAGE INSTALLED AVERAGE RIVER BASIN CAPACITY 2/ ANNUAL CAPACITY 21 ANNUAL PLANT OR SITE KW GENERATION KW GENERATION 1,000 KWH 1,000 KWH MINOR RIVER BASINS TIOGA FORK S FK COOS .20,000 100,000 12 RC NO 6A E FK COQUIL 7,400 60,000 EDEN RIDGE PAC PWR & LIT S FK COQUIL 77,000 197,000 104,400 357,000 ROGUE RIVER BASIN RAMEY FALLS ROGUE 100,000 430,000 BUZZARDS ROOST COOS CURRY ELE ILLINOIS 250,000 767,000 KERBY ILLINOIS 9,400 51,000 APPLEGATE NO 1 APPLEGATE 91000 43,000 GOLD HILL IDEAL CEMENT ROGUE 2,600 11,000 10,500 62,000 GOLD HILL ROGUE GOLD BAY PAC PWR & LT ROGUE 1,000 10,500 GREEN SPRINGS BUR OF RECLAM IMIGRANT CR 16,000 61,000 EAGLE POINT PAC PWR & LT LITTL BUTTE 2.813 20,000 49,000 303,000 LOST CREEK CORP OF ENGIN ROGUE PROSPECT NO 1. PAC PWR & LT M&N FK ROG 3.760 25,000 PROSPECT NO 2 PAC PWR & LT M&N FK ROG 32,000 282,000 16,000 58,000 PROSPECT NO 4 PAC PWR & LT M&N FK ROG 1,000 8,200 PROSPECT NO 1 PAC PWR & LT S FK ROGUE 7,200 50,000 RITER CREEK ROGUE. 9,600 60,000 ROP CREEK ROGUE 6,800 41,000 UNION CREEK ROGUE 12,000 74,000 CASTLE CREEK ROGUE 8,500 52,000 65,273 459,200 580,800 2,391,000 TOTAL OREGON COASTAL RIVER DRAINAGE 250,773 19501,900 1,580,530 6,918,000 IAnnual generation potential at Days Creek (unknown) Not included in total. SOURCE: Federal Power Commission, 1976, Table 2. 19 G HI C7 A CI Tillamook Head MAP LEGEND G G', A.... Withdrawn by Legislative Order 00 So B.... Withdrawn by Order of State Engineer -cc C.... Domestic, Livestock, Irrigation, Power, Industrial, Mining, Recreation, Wildlife, and Fish Life Cl ... Limits Power to 71i hp. C2 ... Includes Temperature Control H D.... Domestic, Livestock, Irrigation (11 acre), Power (7@ hp.), D C of Recreation, Wildlife, and Fish Life E E.... Domestic, Livestock, Municipal, Irrigation (1, acre), Power (712 lip.), Recreation, Wi Idlife, and Fish Life E F.... human Consumption, Livestock Consumption, Industrial, OF ; I Recreation, Wildlife, and Fish Life tj E G.... Human Consumption, Livestock Consumption, Power (7!1 hp.), Recreation, Wildlife, and Fish Life D If .... Natural Lakes - Domestic, Livestock, Recreation, Wildlife and Fish Life Ill ... Include Power (7h hp.) Cz 0- 112 ... Include Power (711 hp.) and Irrigation (@ acre) B Tida 1 Influence Zone - Domestic, Livestock, Municipal, HI A Irrigation, Industrial, Recreation, Wildlife, and H2 Fish Life North Bend GO N MUllicipal Reservation Coos Bay 0 Minimum Streamflow Point cl L Refer to individual basin Policy statement., for specific locations and streamflow qLlLintitiVS B -j H2 Cape BlanCO H2 SOURCE: OCC & DC, 1974. cl C C1 Figure 4. Water Use Policy in the Oregon Coastal Zone recreational demands (OCC&DC, 1974). Many streams are closed to power development by the State Water Resources Board or the State Legislature (ORS 538.251). Figure 4 shows uses permitted on OCZ waters. Oregon's coastal streams were inventoried by the State Water Resources Board (OCC&DC, 1974) and it was determined that: Power development, although designated as a beneficial use in most areas, has little feasibility due to the limited number of environmentally compati- ble project sites and today's high construction costs. In consideration of these factors, it appears that there is only a low likelihood that new hydroelectric dams will be sited in the OCZ in the foreseeable future. Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Generation--Because demand for electricity varies from hour to hour and day to day, excess energy from baseload facilities may be available, particularly at night and on weekends. Pumped storage is a method of storing energy during times when excess energy is available, and recovering it when needed to meet demand loads. The layout of a typical pumped storage facility is shown in Figure 5. UPPER RESERVOIR PENSTOCK TUNNEL LOWER RESERVOIR POWERPLANT PUMP-TURBINE TAILRACE TUNNEL Fig. 5. Diagram of a Pumped-Storage Project SOURCE: ACOE, 1978 In 1976, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a reconnaissance level survey of the Pacific Northwest and identi- fied potential pumped storage sites with greater than 1,000 MW peaking capacity potential. Basic evaluation criteria shown in Table 8 were used to screen candidate sites. 21 Seas i de 0592 591 93 Lincoln City 94 Newport J Reedsport 601,602 607,608 North Bend 96 609,610 Coos Bay 5974 1 611 598 5@949@ 66 _ 0 6 5* 604* Cape Blanco Port Orford 626 638 0620 62101 I *63WO 0628 62 0 623 19 622 635 Figure 6. Potential Pumped Storage Sites in the Oregon Coastal Zone. Source: Corps of Engineers, 1976 22 TABLE 7 POTENTIAL PUMPED STORAGE SITES IN THE OREGON COASTAL ZONE Size Lower New/ No. Site Name mW I Reservoir Existin( Rogue Basin 619 Buckskin Peak 1000 Illinois River New 620 Coffee Butte 1000 Lobster Creek New 630 Quosatana Butte 1000 Quosatana Creek New 631 Salal Spring #1 1000 Euchre Creek New Umpqua Basin 596 Beulah Creek 1000 Milliccma River EP New 600 Long Ridge 1000 Elgarose Creek New Oregon Coastal and Minor Tributaries Basins 591 Angora Peak 1000 Pacific Ocean Existin 595 Baldy Mountain 1000 Smith River NF New 618 Bear Wallow 1000 Winchuck River New 592 Buster Creek 1000 Buster Creek New 598 Callahan Road #1 1000 Williams River New 599 Callahan Road #2 2000 Williams River New 613 Camp #2 1000 Coquille River New 593 Condenser Peak 1000 Siletz River New 614 Doe Swamp 1000 Cow Creek WF New 617 Eden Ridge 1000 Coquille River SF New 594 Fanno Peak 1000 Valsetz Lake Existin@ 606 Flourncy Valley 1000 Lookingglass Creek New 615 Kenyon Mountain 1000 Coquille River New 623 Lookingglass Prairie 1000 Chetco River New 625 Morton Butte 1000 Chetco River New 627 North Chetco 1000 Pacific Ocean Existing 597 Old Tioga Camp 1000 Coos Rl;ver New 629 Packsacole Mountain 1000 Fourth of July Creek New 628 Pollywog Butte 1000 Chetco River SF New 612 Powers Ranch 1000 Salmon Creek New 632 Salal Spring #2 1000 Elk River New 634 Snow Camp 1000 Pistol River New 604 Thomas Mountain 1000 Sandy Creek New 605 Tioga Creek 1000 Tioga Creek New SOURCE: ACOE, 1976, Table 6 23 Thirty sites in or upstream from the Oregon Coastal Zone were found to have potential for development (ACOE, 1976). These sites are shown on Figure 6 and identified in Table 7. Two of these sites were considered to have the greatest promise: Eden Ridge, on the South Fork Coquille River (Site 617 , and the Buster Creek site on the divide between North Fork Rock Creek and Buster Creek in the Nehalem Basin (Site 592). Following publication of their 1976 survey, the ACOE held public hearings and refined their screening process. All OCZ sites were subsequently eliminated from further consideration. This decision resulted primarily from elimination of all sites with less than 3,000 MW potential (most OCZ sites were in the 1 - 2,000 MW range) and those with significant social or environmental impacts. Based on these considerations, there is very little likeli- hood that pumped storage generating facilities will be proposed in the OCZ. TABLE 8 MAJOR SITE EVALUATION FACTORS FOR HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION (ACOE, 1978) Physical Site Characteristics Environmental Features Topography Special land designation Geology (wilderness area, Hydrology national forest, etc.) Access Anadromous fish ,Availability of construction Resident fish materials Wildlife Land use (existing, future) Big game range Relocations (roads, railways, Ecological effects utilities, etc.) Aesthetics Existing facilities (lower Water quality reservoir) Penstock characteristics-- Social Features length of flowline Reservoir capacities Displacement of people Allowable drawdown Land ownership Plant capacity Historical and archaeological Operating cycle sites Proximity to load centers Public attitudes Potential for plant expansion Health and safety (staged development) Economic Features Construction cost Power benefits Multiple-purpose benefits Water supply Recreation Other 24 Small-scale hydroelectric-Teneration--Although large new hydroele projects are unlikely in the Coastal Zone, significant opportunities may exist for small-scale hydroelectric generation. Such facilities could range from very small generators supplying the needs of a single nearby household up to more sizeable tur- bines fed from small dams and generating part of the power used by a community. Conversion of existing non-power producing dams for this purpose may also occur. The potential for small-scale hydroelectric,generation in the Oregon Coastal Zone is not known at this time, but inven- tories are now underway and will be completed in early 1979 (Klingman, pers. comm.). In the absense of this forthcoming information, it may be stated that it is probably quite likely that small hydroelectric generation facilities will be built; their size, number, and design is unknown. Biomass--There appears to be ample opportunity for develop- ment of small to medium sized (<50 MW) plants which would generate electricity from surplus mill waste and forest residues from cut-over coastal forests. Potential use of more of these resources for power generation depends mainly on markets for residues, on loca- tional and distance (i.e., transportation) factors, and on costs of competing power. Inventories of forest residues indicate large volumes (up to 225 tons/acre) are potentially available in clear- cuts in the Douglas fir forests (e.g., Dell and Ward, 1971). Large quantities of mill residues are also available (e.g., Grantham, et al., 1974), although supply/demand relationships are not stable and substantial transportation questions remain un- answered (Knapp, 1976). Increased utilization of wood waste for power production seems probable in the future. Most or all of this will involve increased self-sufficiency within the forest products industry, but sales of surplus power from these sources will also likely increase. At this time, it appears that non-forest industry power generation plants have only a low to medium likelihood, unless public power costs increase much more rapidly than currently pro- jected. Otherwise, incentives are lacking for local utilities to enter the biomass fuels generation business. Another way biomass fuels could be used in the OCZ is for woody fuels to be grown and harvested specifically for use in wood or wood and coal fired thermal plants of up to 50 MW size. Re- search into intensive culture of species such as red alder and black cottonwood indicates that yields could approach 15 dry tons/acre on some sites (e.g., Heilman, et al, 1972), but competitive econo- mics, particularly opportunity costs on good forest lands, are not yet favorable (Jamison, 1977),, Current research (e.g., Harlow and Oliver, 1978) is seeking to screen species, soils, and cultural practices affecting biomass production and the economics of growing woody products specifically for fuel. 25 Given the forest-based economies of some OCZ communities, the availability of land may be a problem in realizing implementa- tion of biomass farming. However, this may change as this type of endeavour becomes more widely practiced, since the short rota- tion times and long-term purchase contracts would make it less speculative than traditional forestry. Any biomass-fueled thermal plants will be small and designed for local or regional supply. At this time, siting of biomass-fueled thermal plants has a low to medium likelihood. Direct Solar--Two technologies appear relevant for centralized electrical power generation in the Oregon Coastal Zone: photovoltaics and ultra-high temperature concentrators. Photovoltaic cells are currently much too expensive for use in public power supply applications, but technology in the field is advancing rapidly. At this time, it is not possible to specu- late on when this option will be feasible for use in supplying local or district centralized power in the OCZ, or whether such applications will ever be cost-effective. Consequently, this technology has a very low likelihood of being proposed in the imme- diate future. Ultra-high temperature solar concentrators use paraboloid mirrors to focus all incoming solar radiation onto a single point. A steam boiler is located in the foci and the steam is used to run a conventional steam turbine. Only research prototypes are available, but this type of solar generating system shows very high conversion efficiencies, uses non-depletable energy, and could be adapted to provide power on a local or regional scale. Because of the intermittent character of direct solar, these systems require either large amounts of storage or backup connections to conventional power sources. In the Oregon Coastal Zone, these requirements could be met by using the exiting hydro- based utility grid as a combined storage and backup system. Although the details are rather complex, the concept is quite simple: when the sun is shining,electricity is generated by the solar conversion system(s). Water which would ordinarily be used to generate this load can be saved behind the dams in the Pacific Northwest Power Supply System. When the sun is not producing electricity, the hydropower system is turned on and uses, in part, the water saved by the solar generation. 26 The Oregon Coastal Zone is not a particularly spectacular candidate for large scale installation of direct central genera- tion solar power, however, because of its often cloudy weather. If and when the price of solar equipment comes down to the point it can begin to compete with new thermal power sources, any large installations will probably be placed in central or eastern Oregon. As will be discussed below, a much more logical alterna- tive energy system for the OCZ is wind-hydro. Consequently, large scale direct solar facilities will likely not be proposed for the OCZ in the foreseeable future. Ocean power--The presence of the high-energy Pacific Ocean shore (Stembridge, 1976)'has lono invited speculation about the possibility of converting the energy of waves, tides, or ocean gradients into useful energy for man's use. In some areas of the world, for example, high tides exist which have been used to drive small horizontal turbines; there is also considerable ongoing research into devices to derive useful power from the thermal and salinity gradients which exist off some coasts. At this time, the likelihood of practical and environmentally acceptable tapping of the near-shore energy of the Pacific Ocean is very low. Thermal and salinity gradients suitable for powering generation are not found off Oregon's coasts. Technological problems remain the major obstacle for wave-power converters, and the lack of high tide and sacrificeable estuaries appears to virtually preclude development of any significant amounts of power from the tides. Geothermal Power'--Generation of power using heat derived from the earth's crust is an active possibility in the Cascade Range, but there are no known geothermal areas in the Oregon Coastal Zone (see Figure 7). Consequently, this type of facility has very low likelihood. Wind Energy--Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) are devices which extract kinetic energy from moving air (wind) and transform it into mechanical, electrical, or potential energy which is useful to man. @ Historically, many typos of WECS and many applications have been devised, but the facilities of most interest for OCZ energy planning are the large (100-10,000 kW) wind machines which could generate electricity for use by a local utility or for transmission offsite.via the Pacific Northwest Grid. Only a few large WECS have been built, and the technology is still in the prototype stage. t y T 0 H Mi rV2 V6;, M3 m4 03 17@, .1 j *013 013 15, 009 164 012, *012 U 011 Figure 7. Known Geo thermal Resource Areas in the Pacific Northwest. SOURCE: PNW River Basins Commission, 1977. 28 If the expected technical and cost breakthroughs are achieved, wind energy could undoubtedly play an important role in the energy future of Oregon and the Oregon Coastal Zone. In some configura- tions, WECS may already be cost-competitive with conventional thermal generation (Hewson, 1977). Components of WECS include the airfoil or blades (which may be of many types and configurations), the generator, support structures, transmission facilities and/or energy storage facil- ities. Storage is needed if power demand cannot rise and fall with the wind. Options incl,ude batteries, flywheels, pumped storage hydro, hydrogen gas, hot water, chemical salts, and compressed air (either in tanks, underground in caverns or aquifers, or under- sea in inflatible bags). Transmission facilities are needed to hook the WECS into a utility grid. WECS could be located on land or on offshore platforms (similar to OCS drilling platforms). Offshore WECS could produce either electricity or hydrogen gas for transferral to mainland distribution system. Because even the largest single WECS unit requires less than 15 acres (Coty, 1976), such units could be located atop the ridges in the Coastal Range or near the communities which would use the energy. Site Requirements--Although small wind machines have been and are being used in diverse locations with widely varying available wind power, the relatively high costs associated with larger WECS require careful evaluation of potential sites and acquisition of data about wind characteristics. Consequently, only sites with average wind speeds above 10 mph (4.4 m/s) are being actively considered by researchers and potential sponsors. Sites with higher winds are most likely to be chosen for initial wind machine siting and testing (Hewson, 1977; Hirshfield, 1977). Site configuration and topography is also important (Golding, 1955). Most large WECS have blades which sweep an area extending up to 100 m above the ground level, and turbulence characteristics at various levels strongly influence the useful output and operating life (and hence cost) of blades, gearings, and support structures. Site selection must also consider rail or road access and foundation (soils) characteristics (Golding, 1955), as well as distance to point of use or grid hookup. If hydrogen gas is to be produced, pipeline routing and hookup should be a major planning consideration. 29 In the Pacific Northwest, an integrated hydroelectric-wind system would provide significant economies while retaining the environmental benefits (and costs) of both sources. This would be the most likely large-scale application for wind power in this region. In this scheme, WECS would be built in as many locations as possible and hooked directly into the existing hydro-based power utility. When the wind blows, the wind power would flow into the grid, allowing the turbines at the dams to be shut down. Water thus saved (i.e., stored) would be used for peaking and when the wind energy is low. Additional turbines could be installed in the dams equivalent to the average energy provided by the wind, thus significantly increasing the capacity of the utility (Coty, 1976; Hewson, 1977iand Peterson et al., 1978). Because of the locally intermittent nature of winds, multiple- unit systems of WECS are required if wind energy is to have a major role in State or Regional energy generation. Since each site has seasonally varying power-availability, the WECS network sites must be selected to provide reduced overall power generation fluctuations and increased average system capacity factors. Capacity factors are the ratio of total rated generating capabili- ty to actual energy output from the entire system (Peterson, et al., 1978). OCZ Wind Energy Potential-- The Oregon coast, coastal range, and offshore areas are naturally windy. Wind power availability studies conducted since 1971 have shown that there are a large number of sites with strong and persistent winds along the Oregon coast, particularly along the southern Oregon coast, and that offshore areas in relatively shallow water (25 fathoms or less) also are good windy sites. In the Coastal Range, moderate to strong wind sites have been documented at Mt. Hebo, Prairie Mountain, McCulloch Peak, and Mary's Peak (Hewson, et.al., 1977). Peterson et al. (1978) rate the OCZ as having high T> 400 W/m2, 70% of th@_fif`me or more) effective wind power density during winter and spring, and high-moderate (300 - 400 W/M2, 50% of the time or more) during summer and fall. Coastal sites are therefore the only sites in the Pacific Northwest which have very good year-round potential. Wind power study sites in the OCZ are listed in Table 9 and located in Figure 8. According to Hewson (1973, 1977), prevailing winds blow parallel to the coast rather than perpendi- cular to it, and for this reason the offshore or shoreline locations appear to have the best wind. 30 TABLE 9 WIND ENERGY STUDY SITES IN THE OCZ Station Elevation Period of Record 2. Columbia River L,ightship 0 m MSL 1968-74 3. Astoria 2 1953-57, 73 4. Wickiup Ridge 820 1971 5. Tillamook Head 370 1972 6. Cape Lookout Ridge 290 1975-76 7. Mt. Hebo 960 1973-74 8. Cannery Mountain 325 1972 9. Cape Foulweather 152 1973 10. Yaquina Lighthouse 22 1973-75 11. Yaquina Tower 73 1975-76 12. Yaquina Comm. Station 113 1973-76 13. Florence Jetty 4 1975-77 14. Cape Blanco Coast Guard 61 1968-72 15. Cape Blanco Airport 61 1976 18. Mary's Peak 1250 1976 19. Prairie Mountain 975 1976-77 SOURCE: Hewson, et al, 1977 31 2 16 5L04 LEGEND *WIND POWER ANEMOMETER LOCATIONS ABIOLOGICAL WIND PROSPECTING STUDY SITES IN WESTERN OREGON 6 *7 Lincoln City r/ 10* Yaquina Head 9, 10-12@ Newport 36 17 1 -j Florence 3 Coos Bay Ll Cape Blanco 14 Port Orford Figure 8. Wind Power Study Sites in the Oregon Coastal Zone. 32 In addition to their work with anemometer-equipped sites, Hewson, Wade and Baker (1977) are also examining the use of wind- affected vegetation (flag trees, etc.) as a wind energy indicator for non-fnstrumented sites. This work is important because few weather stations are located in the remote or high elevation exposed situations where wind energy is most prevalent on the land. Biological wind prospecting study sites in the OCZ (see Figure 8) include Yaquina Head, Prairie Mountain, and Cape Blanco. Peterson et al. (1978) used weather data from five of the best sites in th-eP-acific Northwest to simulate power availability from a multiple-unit system. They also calculated wind variability and the amount of hydro storage necessary to smooth the wind power fluctuations. Seasonal, monthly, daily and hourly power produc- tion were simulated for wind turbines with varying wind speed ratings. Results from this study showed that regionally dispersed wind sites do provide smoothing of fluctuations in wind-generated power, but that even on a regional basis these are positive correlations among sites. Overall system generation varies enough, particularly on a daily basis, that energy storage is required to further smooth the output. Peterson et al. evaluated the use of .. hydro storage, supplied either from existing reser- voirs or from potential future pumped storage sites (see above). In each case, they determined the number of wind generators which could be utilized in conjuction with each storage unit, then calculated combined net wind-hydro system power Droduction. If existing hydro storage were used, then the annua@ energy production per wind generator of 125-feet diameter would be about 1470 MWh.; for 200-feet diameter generators, about 3760 MWh could be expected annually. Thus, a 200-unit wind generator farm with 200-feet blade diameter wind turbines could produce about 752,000 MWh annually. Peterson et al. estimate that 6 to 30 million acre- feet of storage in existil-ng-reservoirs would be used to provide power regulation for such a system. If pumped storage units were constructed at all sites identified by the Corps of Engineers in their recent survey (1976) and the maximum number of wind generators which they could support are installed, Peterson et al. (1978) estimate annual energy production for each 125-Te-eT-diameter wind turbine to be 940 MWh; for each 200-feet-diameter unit it is 2406 MWh. Useable annual energy production by each pumped storage unit would be about 330,000 MWh. It should be noted that wind generators would not be located at the hydro storage sites in either example, but rather at loca- tions having large values of wind power density. Therefore, it is. possible to envision wind generator farms located in the coastal zone, while the storage-regulatory hydro facilities are at existing locations elsewhere in the region. 33 The major environmental constraint to wi-despread development of wind energy generation is that about 15 acres is needed for each large (1-5 megawatt) wind generator, both to insure adequate spacing between machines, and to provide safety buffer zones. ' Most of this area would be avilable for agricultural purposes.or other uses, depending on the site. In the Coastal Zone, shorelands suited to wind energy generation are also prime scenic areas. While wind turbines may be aesthetically acceptable in some cases, it is not highly likely that large wind farms could be located in these scenic areas. Installation of wind turbines in upland areas, however, might be more acceptable. Based on the above considerati-on, it appears that siting of large wind generators in the Oregon Coastal Zone has a medium to high likelihood in the intermediate future. Siting of wind generator farms is less likely and if done will be still further in the future. Wind technology developers are now building prototype models and are several years away from building commer- cial models. Once reliable equipment is available and generating costs ($/KWh) are reduced, wind energy could become very important for the Coastal Zone. 34 OIL AND GAS Existing Facilities Onshore-- Oil and gas exploration and production is almost non- existent in the Oregon Coastal Zone. Wells have been drilled in all coastal coInties, but no important finds have been made (DOGAMI, 1973, 1974, 1975 Offshore-- There has been a recent proposal to exp lore the lower Columbia River area off the Oregon and Washington shores, but generally very little excitement has been generated by this or previous explor- atory efforts. Federal and State offshore drilling from 1961 to 1969 resulted in some small finds but no production, and no federal leasing in the Oregon OCS is planned at this time. (Newton, 1967; BLM OCS Office, personal communication). Marine Pipelines - Because there is no oil to bring ashore, there are no marine pipelines in the OCZ. Tanker Traffic-- Oil tankers carrying Alaskan and other crudes now travel up the Columbia River to the Chevron USA asphalt refinery at Portland. Tankers and barges with refined petroleum products, mostly from refineries in the Puget Sound area, use the Columbia River to reach the Chevron USA distribution terminal at Portland. Petroleum transport on the Qo1umbi:a. River averaged 2.9 million barrels crude equiv- alent in 1974-76 (ACOE, 1978 ). Petroleum products are also shipped to major coastal ports, par- ticularly Coos Bay, and this traffic is increasing (Falcons, pers.comm.). Over 2 million barrels of petroleum products was received at Coos Bay in 1977. Oil/Gas Ports, Terminals-- No deepwater oil ports exist in Oregon. Ports which presently handle petroleum products and/or crude oil include: Portland, St. Helens, Astoria, Newport, Umpqua, and Coos Bay (Oregon Department of Transportation, 1972). Portland- A 40-foot channel and turning basins provide access for tankers up to 75,000 tons deadweight. Petroleum receipts of 25.8 million barrels from domestic sources were reported in 1972 (ODOT, 1972). Tank farm facilities and an asphalt refinery at Portland are owned by Chevron USA. The tank farm is part of a petroleum products warehousing and distribution center. St. Helens- The Port of St. Helens includes the 850-acre Beaver Army facility at Port Westward, which is currently being used by Portland General Electric for delivery of fuel oil for the Beaver electric generating plant near Clatskanie. 35 Astoria- The Port of Astoria received over 120 thousand barrels of fuel oils and other petroleum products in 1970 (ODOT, 1972). Newport- Authorized to a depth of 40 feet, Yaquina Bay is the home of a large recreation and fishing fleet, as well as the Northwest Natural Gas Company's LNG facility at McLean Point on the north side of the bay. This facility is designed for importation of LNG, but the necessary dock facilities have not been authorized or constructed at this time. Umpqua- Located at Reedsport, the Port of Umpqua is authorized to 22 feet and receives fuel barges destined for the International Paper Company plant at Gardner. Coos Bay- The Port of Coos Bay has five berths serving oil tankers. Refined products are offloaded to small tank farms owned by Texaco, Standard, and Union oil companies, and by Oregon Coast Towing. Oil from these facilities is trucked inland. A port expansion program is currently underway at Coos Bay in the North Spit area, with initial construction on a planned marine industrial park schedul ed to begi n i n the near f uture (Fal cons, pers. comm. ; Kl ampe, pers. comm.). Natural Gas-- Natural gas service to the Oregon Coastal Zone is limited to the Astoria-Seaside area and the Lincoln City-Newport area. Each of these sections of the coast is supplied via a pipeline from the main service area of Northwest Natural Gas Company, as shown in Fi'gure 9. Northwest Natural Gas Company (NWNG) obtains natural gas from the Northwest Pipeline Corporation (not affiliated with NWNG), which has a pipeline running north-south from the Portland area to Grants Pass. The gas comes from fields in the Four Corners Region of the southwestern U.S., and from Canada. Northwest Pipeline Corporation is participating in development of the proposed Northwest Alaskan Pipeline, and NWNG anticipates the availability of portions of the North Slope gas during the 1980's (NWNG, 1977). NWNG also operates a small propane system in the Coos Bay-North Bend area, serving about 75 customers via four separate underground distribution systems. The propane is brought in by railroad car (Gibbs, pers. comm.). Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)-- NWNG recently constructed and now operates an LNG facility at Newport, Oregon. This plant is designed for the dual purposes of(l) storing natural gas in liquid form duri@g the summer, for winter use ("peak shaving"), and(2) serving as a receiving terminal for importation of LNG by ocean tanker (Gibbs, Letter of 6-12-78). The liquification and storage facilities have been in operation since 36 Astoria 171 if 6.6 0,69,0 .%.Ova Newport Figure 9 Northwest Natural Gas company System Lines Legend NNG Lines Certificated Coos Bay Service Area A LNG Plant Northwest Pipeline Corporation Oregon Coastal Zone Boundary 37 July of 1977, and provides storage equivalent to 1,045 million cubic feet of gas. Gas is piped to Newport, then liquified and stored. During the winter when demands are high, the gas is vaporized at the plant and distributed through the utility's sytem, thereby 11 shaving" the delivery amounts required from Northwest Pipeline Corporation. Petroleum Refining - There is one refinery in Portland which influences the Oregon Coastal Zone. It is an asphalt refinery with 14,000 bpd crude capacity, and is supplied by tankers from Alaska and elsewhere. Geopressurized Gas-- Natural gas can be stored underground in naturally occuring caverns or in suitable confined aquifers. The gas is injected for storage, then pumped out as needed. No use is currently made of this storage technique in the OCZ. Oil Pipelines-- No oil pipelines are located in the OCZ. OCS Platform Construction Yards-- There are no facilities for fabrication or assembly of drilling platforms for use in OCS oilfield exploration or production. Platform repairs have been done at Portland. OCS Support Bases-- No support facilities are located in or affect the OCZ, although during the 1960's bases were located at Astoria, Coos Bay and Newport (Newton, 1967). Forecasts Oregon Department of Energy Published forecasts of petroleum consumption in Oregon (DOE, 1978) do not itemize for individual products or areas within the State. Current and historic petroleum movement within the Oregon Coastal Zone is predominantly transfer of refined products to Portland and the larger coastal ports, but some crude is also moved to the refinery at Portland. Future activity will depend on local and regional demand, world-wide marketing patterns, availability of petroleum products, and other factors exogenous to the Oregon Coastal Zone; consequently no breakdowns areavailablefor petroleum activity projections for specific ports. 38 Oil and Gas Facility Expansion and New Facilities Onshore- Barring discovery of major deposits of oil and gas in the OCZ, it is not likely that oil exploration activity onshore will expand, nor that production facilities will be sited. Offshore- As reflected in the latest schedule of OCS leasing activities (see Figure 10), there is very little interest at present in oil and. gas explorati.,n on the Oregon Outer Continental Shelf. some areas previously explored off Coos and Douglas Counties and in the Columbia River area may still be considered to have potential, but for the immediate future. siting of offshore exploration rigs has medium likelihood, whilE siting of offshore production rigs and the attendant pipelines, supply bases, and tanker traffic is not likely. Tanker Traffic- Notwithstanding the above, the tanker and oil barge traffic in the OCZ will likely increase, particularly on the Columbia River. As discussed below, there are two proposed new facilities which may be built on the Columbia River and which would receive Alaskan crude shipped or barged up the river. Increases in coastal tanker traffic from Alaska to California will depend in part on the fate of schemes for supplying Alaskan oil to the interior U.S.A. If pipeline terminals are located in Washington, less traffic will traverse the coast. If California terminals are chosen, more coastal traffic can be expected. Oil/Gas Ports and Terminals- Expansion or new construction of oil and gas terminal facilities at existing portsis highly likely. Expanded LNG handling capability at Newport, a tanker offloading and rail transhipment complex at Port Westward (Port of St. Helens) and a new refinery at Rainier near the Longview bridge are being proposed at this time. All of these projects have important environmental and social consequences, but it appears probable that one or more .will be built. These and related projects are described briefly below. Ratnier-- The Cascade Energy Company has obtained permits for construction of a 30,000 barrel-per-day refinery at Rainier, and expects to begin construction in the fall of 1978 (Caribou Four Corners Co., telephone conversation of 6-22-78). Alaskan crude would be moved to the facility by barge and tanker. Portland- No expansion of oil handling facilities is planned CD-OT, 1972; Chevron U.S.A. 1978). Figure 10 PROPOSED OCS PLANNING SCHEDULE August 1977. SALE AREA 1977 1 1 78 1 1979 - I ' 19110 1 Lid I S JOIN D J F 11,111 A MIJ I J A I 'i I,) I N1 ()I J If NI A I @.i I 1: 1.!, 1 N Il I I f.1 i A 1,'10IN L) I I INIIA U1 J I S Cl Cook Inlet N Si 42 N. Atlantic IF P, IN S P N S Mrgij Embayment 45 Gulf of Mexico @F P N 3 1,5 Eastern Gulf of Mexico N F P N S t LI Gulf of Mexico _N -F -P N S_ 49 Mid-Atlantic T E N F P N S 46 Southern Cilifornia H F P; N S @d Gulf of Mexico ,C ID T E H F 1, N S [email protected]: -.- .. , - - - - - - - -- ..- - .. .1 -- I E H r I, N S T -4 CI . '_._ ___- - 11 . I iijilsFifi t_ t E H F NS @PT C .4 Gulf of Alaski C 0 E_ H _1 F. P@ N S r - . t C D T E 1 F Is 67 Gulf of Mexico J HIS 46 Kodiak P N'S, 4- 52 North Allinft 0 T E 11 F It INIS! T t PI N S 77 T 5 rat n@ @Nurtfiern _-Calitornia C 60 Cook Inlet C 0 T E II I F _;P N S nlic. __ 5-LA __D___I T' F: P N; S 7_ _@b fouli AN , E 59 Mul-Atlanlic C T1 E I, F P1 NIS 66 Gull of Mexico F@ T H F P S, Ei 51 Bering-No I t I C rion Tt I C a Call for Nomm@!Ws HPublic Hearing 0 - Nominations Due FFinal Environmental statemew T - Announcement of Tracts P - Prop.sed Notice of Sale E - Drall Eniironmental Statement NNotice of Sale flue Department of [he tniefuir S - Sate 40 St. Helens-- The General American Transportation Company (GATX) has proposed to upgrade the existing dock at the old Beaver Amy Terminal at Port Westward, and to build four 175,000-barrel storage tanks, a rail car loading facility, and breasting dolphins for off- loadingAlaskan crude from tankers. Crude would be stored at the tank farm, then loaded onto large oil tank rail cars and hauled to refineries in Montana and Minnesota. Because of the potential damage from oil spills at the facility and upstream in the Columbia River along the Burlington Northern Railroad route, environmental impact studies are currently underway. This application has recently been inactivated by GATX, thereby reducing the the likelihood of eventual siting. Like- lihood now appears low-medium. There is some speculation that GATX may develop a Joint facility with Cascade Energy at Rainier. Astoria-- No additional plans for expanded oil terminal faci- lities are reported for the Port of Astoria, but the Port is involved with assisting Brown and Root Company in siting of a deep-sea oil well drilling platform assembly area in the Skipanon Slough Area (Burger, 1976).(See below for further discussion of platform assembly areas.) Newport - Northwest Natural Gas Company intends to complete their LNG plant at McLean Point in Yaquina Bay by addition of docking and LNG offloading facilities (Gibbs, Letter of 6-12-78). This will reportedly take a minimum of two years and will involve obtaining permits from various agencies (See Section on Permits). No addi- tional tanks would be built at the site (Gibbs, personal communica- tion 5-31-78). Likelihood of import facility siting is medium to high, based on facility existence, and tempered by concerns over LNG transport hazards. Umpqua - No expansion or development of oil shipping facilities is planned for Reedsport (Vaughn, pers. comm.). Coos Bay-- The Port of Coos Bay has done preliminary studies of the possibility of building an additional deep water berth in the North Spit Area for handling of petroleum tankers (Klampe, personal communication, 6-26-78). This project is in the conceptual stages and no timetable is available. Land owned by the Port on the North Spit is zoned for this use and could be developed fairly easily for deepwater berths. 41 Natural Gas Pipelines - Northwestern Natural Gas Company is currently seeking to add new customers (NNWG: Annual Report, 1977). They do not plan, at this time, to expand their main service system in the OCZ, although their certificated service area does encompass the OCZ from Cape Arago northward. Because natural gas competes with currently cheap electricity for space heating and other uses, immediate expansion of the NWNG pipeline system is not likely. Based on uncertain future supplies of natural gas beyond the next two decades, long-term expansion is also not likely. Petroleum Refineries-- The presence of surplus Alaskan crude oil due to lack of suitable refinery capacity on the West Coast may stimulate new construction. One plan is known at this time affecting the Oregon Coastal Zone: the proposed Cascade Energy Company refinery at Rainier. This facility is currently being financed and reportedly has obtained the necessary permits (Kowalczyk, ODEQ, personal communication, 6-21-78). Start of construction is scheduled for Fall of 1978 if financing is secured. Feedstocks would be mainly crudes bar d in from Alaska (Caribou Four Corners Co. , Telephone Conversation of r-22-78). The likelihood of other refineries locating in the Oregon Coastal Zone is not very high, since facilities locating there would be isolated from product delivery systems. Only discovery of a major oil field off Oregon's coast would possibly stimulate siting of additional refineries. Coal Gasification-- Gaseous fuels with low (100-200 Btu/ft3 medium (300-650 Btu-jiP) or high (900-1,050 Btu/ft ) energy content can be produced from coal. Two-stage processes are used to prepare low and intermediate gases, involving coal preparation and gasifi- cation. A third stage, upgrading, is required for high-Btu gas. Figurell shows the principal reactions and reactor types. Gasification requires large amounts of water, as steam, which provides the hydrogen needed to produce the methane gas. There are many different processes now being tested, and water use varies considerably. To produce 250xlO9 Btu/day of low Btu gas using 3 the Koppers-Totzek process, for example, would require 10.5 x 10 tons per day of coal and 463 000 gallons per day of water. A Lurgi High-Btu plant producing 250;106 cubic feet per day would use 18 million gallons per day (All data from: Science and Public Policy Program, 1975). Both coal and water would be limiting within the Oregon Coastal Zone (DGMI, 1975), and the solid waste and air pollution impacts of a gasification plant are also substantial. If these problems could be overcome, the most likely way such a plant or plants might be feasible is using slurried coal imported by ship from Alaska. 42 GASIFIER REACTOR Heat Heat + C+ H 20--*. CO + H2 P Low- Btu Gas Coo I oCO+H O__>C0 +H +Heat 2 2 2 HYDROGASIFIER Coal ON Steam and H2 C+2H2 -.P. CH4+Heat intermediate Rich Gas Btu Gas Heat DEVOLATILIZATION REACTOR Hydrogen -00 Coal P Coal +H2 ---- *. CH4+C+Heat so intermediate Heat Btu Gas Figure Principal Coal Gasification Reactions and Reactor Types SOURCE: The science and Public Policy Programs, 1975, Figure 1-27. 43 The materials balances and the competitive feasibility of this type of project are not well documented. Likelihood of coal gasi- fication facilities is therefore low for the foreseeable future. OCS Platform Fabrication Yards--Brown and Root Company has pro- posed to build a steel platf6r-mfabrication yard near Warrenton. Such facilities consist of 50-1000 acres of cleared flat land, with support buildings and shops, and access to the sea via at least 30 feet of channel. Support infrastructure, including roads, rail- head, powerlines, etc. are needed. Platforms are built in modules near the wharf, then loaded onto barges and towed to the drill site. As described in the FACTBOOK (NERBC/RALI, 1976), construction of fabrication yards is not begun until oil fields are well estab- lished since all platforms are "custom-made." The Warrenton yard, if built, will supply steel platforms for Alaskan OCS production (Ubank, personal communication,6-21-78). The proposal is in the EIS stage at this time. Following public hearings in early 1978, the plans were revised to reduce filled land from 550 acres to about 200 acres. This revision amounted to selection of an "alternative" to the original proposal (Ubank, ibid). At this time, the existing proposal appears highly likely after (or if) Alaskan OCS production begins in earnest. Additional yards in the OCZ are possible but not likely, due to the large land requirements and the existence of other yards elsewhere on the Pacific Coast. OCS Support Bases-- Support bases are transfer points for materials and labor for offshore oil exploration and production rigs. Temporary bases support exploration rigs, permanent bases supply the oil field during the production phase (NERBC/RALI, 1976). Bases generally use leased space at existing wharfs, and include, besides the wharf, adjoining open land and buildings for storage, and small office buildings. Service bases are usually located as close as possible to offshore operations, to cut down travel costs. Therefore, if and when oil exploration and/or production activity begins again off Oregon's coast, companies would identify ports with vacant land available at the waterfront. Because relatively small boats (<200 feet) are generally used for supply purposes, large harbors would 44 not be needed and might in fact be disadvantageous because of congestion. Many of the commercial fishing ports on Oregon's .Coast would be:ideal support base sites, except that transportation requirements may not be met at some ports. Road and/or rail access is essential, since large quantities of materials must pass through the base enroute to the rig. .If OCS activity should increase nearby,,,[email protected] availability of wharf space, any of Oregon's co4stal.ports.which are classified for.development.could become host to temporary y Olamook, Umpqua, Astoria, Coos Isuppl:' 'bases; the larger ports (Ti Bay.-Newport) would be more likely candidates for permanent bases. Overall likelihood of siting OCS support bases is low-medium, based on low likelihood of OCS activity. NEED TO LOCATE IN THE OCZ INTRODUCTION Some of the likely energy facilities, primarily those associated with offshore petroleum development, are limited in their siting options and must locate in the OCZ if they are to be built at all; others are more flexible and could be sited elsewhere. The objective of this section is to report which facilities are technically limited to coastal zone locations, and which would have technically feasible alternative locations. The examination for need to locate in the OCZ considered the following factors: J.. Dependency on coastal waters 2. Safety 3. Proximity to oil or natural gas fields 4. Location of markets 5. State and/or federal siting regulations 6. Type and amount of required land 7. Competing uses of land use, environmental or recrea- tional resources affected by siting, construction, expansion or operation DISCUSSION OF FACTORS Dependency on Coastal Waters - This factor includes those facilities which, by definition, are built in or use coastal waters, or which must have access to the open ocean. Safe - No facilities were found to require OCZ location for safety reasons. Although the coast is attractive for nuclear plant siting because of its largely rural, low density settlement patterns, inland sites are also available. Proximity to Oil and Gas Fields - Facilities which, by definition, are located at or near oil fields were included here, along with support facilities which are nearly always located using proximity as a major factor. Oil ports, petroleum processing facilities, and pipelines are not absolutely dependent on proximity, but siting will be strongly influ- enced by oil field location. Market Location - Energy product distribution systems are dependent on market locations. If these markets are in the OCZ, the facilities must be located in the OCZ as well. Similarly, pipelines from terminals in the OCZ must also be located in the OCZ. 46 Siting Regulations - Siting regulations treat each facility in its natural context, so facilities which are, by definition, located in the OCZ are included in this category. For other facilities, non-OCZ location is an available option. Type and Amount of Land Required - Nominal physical space requirements can be met elsewhere for any land-based facility. However, some faci- lities do require location at a port or near deepwater channels, or other- wise along the coast. Actual or potential availability of such sites was not considered in this evaluation. Competing Uses of Resources - This category would apply only if all non-OCZ sites were already reserved for environmental or recreational purposes, which is not the case for any of the energy facilities under examination. CONCLUSIONS Results of this evaluation are contained in Table 10. Using the seven factors given above, some types of energy facilities could only be sited in or near the Oregon Coastal Zone. 9 Ocean Power Generating Facilities 0 Offshore Oil/Gas Exploration 0 Offshore Oil/Gas Production 0 Oil/Gas Tanker Traffic 0 Marine Pipelines and Landfalls 0 Oil/Gas Port and Terminal Facilities 9 @OCS Platform Construction Yards 9 OCS Support Bases 0 Electrical Transmission Lines to OCZ Market Areas 0 Petroleum Pipelines with Terminals in OCZ TABLE 10 FACTORS REQUIRING OREGON COASTAL ZONE LOCATION Summary Dependency Proximity Type of Competing If Allowed, MUST BE . on Safety To Oil/Gas Market Siting Land Uses of Other SITED in Type of Facility- Coastal Waters Fields Location Regulations Required Resources OCZ Electrical Plants: Fossil No No No No No No No Nuclear No No --- No No No No No Biomass No No No No No No No Direct Solar No No --- No No No No No Ocean Power Yes No --- (Yes) --- --- No Yes Wind Power No No No No No No --Availability of No Geothermal No No --- No No No No Wind No Hydroelectric No No --- No No No No No High Voltage Transmission No No No Yes No No No Yes Oil/Gas Exploration Offshore Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No 4@- Oil/Gas Exploration Onshore (Yes) No No --- No (NO) 4 Oil/Gas Production Offshore Yes No Yes. No Yes --- No Yes Oil/Gas Production Onshore No No Yes No No --- No (Yes) Oil/Gas Tanker Traffic Yes No Yes Yes --- No Yes Marine Pipeline Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 041/Gas Port, Terminals Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes LNG Facility No No (mo) No No No No No Petroleum Refinery No No (No) No No No No No Gasification Plant 140 No No No No No No No GeOoressurized Gas No No No No No No No No Oil/Gas Pipeline on Land No No No Yes No No No Terminal Location Yes OCS Platform Construction Yes No Yes Yes --- Yes No Yes OCS Support Base Yes No Yes Yes --- Yes No Yes NEED FOR LOCATION in the OREGON COASTAL ZONE. "Yes" means the facility must locate in the OCZ and nowhere else in Oregon due to the indicated factor. "No" means the facility could technically locate elsewhere. Items in parenthesis mean the factor is a major consideration but is not absolutely proscriptive. IMPACTS, STANDARDS, AND SUITABILITY INTRODUCTION The pressures and technical requirements which may stimulate expan- sion or location of energy facilities in the Oregon coastal zone have been presented in the previous sections. In this section, we examine the con- straints which will be placed on these development pressures by the natural limitation of the environments of the coastal zone, and by standards which regulate siting of the facilities. The objective of this section is to provide a general assessment of the suitability of coastal environments as sites for energy facilities. Policy implications of this assessment are discussed in Volume I. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The coastal zone will be directly and indirectly impacted by con- struction and operation of any energy facilities within the zone and by some types of facilities located outside the zone. Obviously, the signi- ficance and type of impact will be 'highly dependent upon the location, size, design, operation, and impact mitigation characteristics of each individual facility. Similar facilities located in two different topo- graphic, cultural or resource type areas will have measurably different impacts. Consequently, the evaluation given here is general and must be supplemented by site-specific studies. Any interactions among facilities will also strongly influence the impacts which may be realized. Three systems may be affected by an energy facility siting decision: social, economic, and environmental. For purposes of this analysis, the social and economic systems are represented by the following impact cate- gories: � Population influx in localized area � Alteration of local employment patterns � Need for new or improved public facilities � Altered traffic patterns or need for new transportation facilities, including navigation � Increased use pressure on recreational facilities � Increased or threatened increase in risks to public safety and property, including beaches, marine facilities and navigation corridors � Substantial changes in energy use patterns, energy effi- ciencies and/or conservation 49 Impact categories for natural systems include: . Air Quality Degradation .Water Quality Degradation oWater Consumption .Fish and Wildlife Habitat Alteration .Radioactive Releases .Thermal Releases oAesthetic Impacts .Noise .Solid Waste Generation/Disposal Table 11 presents a summary evaluation of likely signi- ficant impacts of each facility type. This table was constructed .by considering environmental assessments for existing and proposed facilities, and by examination of the nature of each type of facility. As stated above, this evaluation is a generalization and may not be applicable in an individual situation. However, it does provide a minimum structure for detailed evaluation of any proposals. In Table 11, impacts which are likely to be significant are coded "Y". Impacts which may occur, or which may be significant, in some instances, are coded "M". Dashed entries indicate only minor impacts, or that significant impacts are highly unlikely. Some impacts can or must be largely or entirely eliminated (mitigated) in order to receive necessary state or federal permits. Air quality degradation and thermal releases, for example, are strictly regulated. Likely impacts listed in Table 11 presume applicable mitigation efforts. 50 TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF ENERGY FACILITY IMPACTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS W 2'% a) 0 U X C U oU U0 CL CL :3 06 Z 0 W W 0 Uj 0 0 v 0 '0 0 0= 3: U :z C, CL W FACILITY TYPE ;t ;t -@2 'j ;t W C Electrical Generation Fossil Fuel Yt Yt Yt MM --Y Y Y MYMM M Y Y Y Nuclear Yt Yt Yt MM --M - M MYMti M M Y M Biomass M M M M- --Y Y 11 -MMM - - M M Hydroelectric Y Yt Yt YM YMh Y -MYY - Mt - Y Direct Solar - - - M- - - Y M - - - Y Ocean Power - - - MM M- M M - - - M Wind Power - - - M- --Y -MtM - - - Y Geothermal - MM rl-Y M M MMMM - M - High Voltage Transmission Lines - - - MM -My Mt Y - M - Y Oil/Gas Exploration Onshore Mt Mt tit tit tit tit Mt- tit Mt tit-Mt Mt - Mt tit !At Offshore tit Mt Mt Mt- 11 lit- tit Mt lit--M- Mt - 11 Oil/Gas Production Onshore Y y Y Yti M M F1 M-MM - M M Y Offshore Y Y Y YY YM- M M M--M - - M M Oil/Gas Tanker Traffic M YY M - M - M--ti - - - - Marine Pipeline - - - - - M-- - - M--Mt - - - - Oil/Gas Port, Facil. I Y Y Y* YY YM- Y y Y-MM - M Y Y A Rail Transshipment LNG Plant Mt M M Y.M M-Y M - M--M - M - M Refinery M M M -M M-M Y Y M--M - M - Y Gasification Plant H M M M- M-- Y Y -M- - - M N M Geopressurized Gas - - - - M M-- - - M- - - - - - - Pipelines Mt Mt lit MM H-- tit- M-MY - - - M OCS Platform Construction Y Y Y ti- -M- Y y M-MM - Y Y Y OCS Support Base Y Y Y Y- -M- 11 Y M--M - ti M M Y =Sianificant impacts likely 11 =Mlay be significant impacts - =Sionificant impacts unlikely t =Impacts probably temporary 51 SITE SUITABILITY Both the project sponsors and the state must evaluate the suitability of land or offshore sites for location of particular energy facilities. Prior to proposing a site, sponsors will have established, at least to some extent, that it meets their own criteria as to location, availability, price, size and configura- tion, transportation access, etc. The State has two general avenues for evaluation of site suitability. First, specific lands may be designated in advance as suitable or unsuitable for sites, based upon Various specified criteria. In the second approach, as each application is reviewed, it may be evaluated against established land use plans and policies to see whether the proposal is compatible. The first course, advance designation of areas as suitable or not, has been taken by the State Energy Facilities Siting Council (EFSC) for fossil and nuclear electrical generation facilities, and by the State Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for estuaries. This approach is also being taken by local planning entities as they establish comprehensive land use plans. For other facilities and resource types, advance designation of specific areas for use by energy facilities has not been done, and applications for siting will be evaluated in a reactive mode. It is the purpose of this section to briefly describe both processes--proscriptive designation and reactive evaluation--and to relate both to the ability of resources of the coastal zone to host these developments. DESIGNATION OF SUITABLE AREAS State Land Use Planning Goal 5, Guideline A-3 reads: Natural resources and required sites for the generation of energy (i.e. natural gas, oil, coal, hydro, geothermal, uranium, solar and others) should be conserved and pro- tected; reservoir sites should be identified and pro- tected against irreversible loss. EFSC - The Energy Facilities Siting Council has responsibilities for issuance of site certificates for the following energy facilities: e Electric power generation plants with nominal capacity greater than 25,000 kW 9 Nuclear installations * High voltage (>230 kV) transmission lines over 10 miles in length 52 � Solar collectors occupying 100 acres or more � Petroleum product pipelines greater than 5 miles in length, 6 or more inches in diameter � Gas pipelines greater than 5 miles in length, 16 or more inches in diameter In 1974, EFSC's predecessor, Oregon Thermal and Nuclear Energy Council, designated broad areas of the state as suitable or not suitable for thermal and nuclear plants. These areas are shown in Figures 3 and 12. Their suitability analysis was done at a large scale and did not consider specific resource types. Criteria used for excluding areas from consideration for nuclear or large thermal were: 1. Natural Resource Areas - Excluded lands protected, reserved, or identified as valuable for natural values 2. Meteorology - Excluded fossil fuel plants from areas with existing air pollution concerns 3. Population Proximity - Excluded nuclear plants from heavily populated areas 4. Geologic Haza rd - Excluded nuclear plants in active seismic areas. 5. Agricultural land - Must be conserved. Areas which were not excluded by these criteria were designated as "suitable," with the broad caveat that all individual projects, even if proposed in "suitable" areas, would be reviewed in detail against the criteria listed in Table 12. EFSC will not consider applications for energy facilities at sites in areas designated as unsuitable; if an applicant wishes to locate a nuclear or fossil fueled thermal plant in an area so designated, the applicant must convince EFSC to change the designa- tions. All applications for areas designated as "suitable" must be reviewed against the standards in Table 12. Other State Agencies-- EFSC does not have jurisdiction over many of the energy facilities which may seek to site in the Oregon Coastal Zone. Therefore, the non-EFSC facilities are controlled at the State level by individual State agencies with managerial or pro- prietary interests in lands or resources. Specific energy facility related authorities of State agencies are summarized in Table 13. 53 C TSOP W A L L Q 0. U m TILL o 0 r o f@GILLIA t S.ERMAN W A o_', 'L-- 41 E ER ON 7r R 0 A7 E S H TEs W- L H U R M A H A c y E @'77 A K L MATH p UR K-- 1. L f Suitabl. U@witabl* SOURCE: EFSC Figure 12. Land Use Designations for Fossil Fuel Power Plants. 54 TABLE 12 EFSC SITING CRITERIA FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATING PLANTS (1) There must be a need for the proposed facility (2) Risk of injury to the public health and safety will be reduced to the extent which is reasonably practi- cable (3) Disruption or adverse impacts on the environment will be reduced to the extent which is reasonably practi- cable. Endangered plants or species locations may not be used (4) Beneficial use of wastes and by-products will be made (5) Siting will conform to state-wide planning goals and comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances of political subdivisions in which the facility is to be located (6) Historic or archaeological sites are not to be adversely impacted if the facility can be relocated (7) Water use shall not infringe on existing water rights of others (8-9) (These standards refer to the ability of the applicant to complete the project.) (10) The project will not severely disrupt the social and economic well-being of affected communities and indi- viduals. (Rule 345-75-025, Adopted July 19, 1977) 55 TABLE 13 ENERGY FACILITY RELATED MANAGERIAL AND PROPRIETARY INTERESTS OF STATE AGENCIES AGENCY INTERESTS STATUTES (ORS) Department of Economic Port Planning 777-835 Development Department of Environ- Sewage treatment 454.101-454.755 mental Quality Solid waste control 459.005-459.995 Air pollution control 468.275-468.345 Water pollution control 468.700-468.779 Oil spillage Control 468.780-468.795 Dept. of Transportation Scenic areas 377.505-377.530 Outdoor Recreation Resources 390.010-390.110 Ocean Shores;state recreation areas 390.605-390.760 Scenic waterways 390.805-390.865 91 Dept. of Geology and Tidal lands jurisdiction 520.055 Mineral Industries Oil/gas drilling permits 520.005-520.025 Dept. of Forestry Forest practices act 527.610-527.730 Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife refuges 501.005-501.045 Fishwa@s 509.600-509.640 Fisheries conservation zones 506.750-506.755 Division of State Lands Drilling bases 272.551 Natural area preserves 273.562-273.597 Historical materials 273.705-273.742 Mineral and Geothermal Resources 273.775-273.780 Submersible and submerged lands 274.005-274.940 Removal of material, filling 541.605-541.665 Water Resources Dept. Water appropriation for power 543.010-543.620 Water policy, classification and withdrawals 536.210-536.440 Department of Energy Siting of certain types 469.010-469.992 of energy facilities 56 Overall land use planning is controlled by the State-wide land use goals and guidelines. These are administered by the State Land Use Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and are to be implemented at the local planning level. All other state agencies must also comply with the Goals so they effectively permeate the entire state permit and review hierarchy. The Goals and Guidelines address social welfare, ecological protection, coordination of planning, and, in some cases, permitted uses of resource areas. Four of the Goals specifically pertain to coastal resources--16 (Estuaries), 17 (Coastal Shorelands), 18 (Beaches and Dunes) and 19 (Ocean Resources), but all 19 goals are relevant to evaluation of energy facility siting or expansion applications. With the exception of Goal 16, which specifies the level of development and the uses permitted in the States' major coastal estuaries, the statewide goals provide only general guidance for development of local comprehensive plans. The goals thus provide general criteria for the evaluation of site suitabiiity. Goal 16 - On October 7, 1977, LCDC adopted an administrative rule classifying Oregon Estuaries. As provided in Statewide Goal 16, LCDC established four management units and assigned each of the major estuaries on the coast to specific management units. This has the effect of specifying the most intensive level of develop- ment or alteration allowable within each estuary. Estuary classifications are shown in Table 14. The likely effect of this rule on siting of energy facilities in each estuary type is shown in Table 15. 57 TABLE 14 ESTUARY CLASSIFICATIONS NATURAL CONSERVATION SHALLOW-DRAFT DEEP-DRAFT Sand Lake Necanicum River Tillamook Bay Columbia River Salmon River Netarts Bay Depoe Bay Yaquina Bay Elk River Nestucca River Siuslaw River Coos Bay Sixes River Siletz Bay Umpqua River Pistol River Alsea Bay Coquille River Winchuck River Rogue River (Nehalem Bay) Chetco River TABLE 15 ESTUARY SUITABILITY FOR ENERGY FACILITIES ENERGY FACILITIES NATURAL SHALLOW-DRAFT DEEP-DRAFT Fossil Generator (on fill) No No Maybe Nuclear (on fill) No No Maybe Direct Solar Biomass (on Fill) No No Maybe Ocean Power (Tidal Power) No Maybe Yes Wind Power (on Platform) No Maybe Yes Geothermal Hydroelectric Oil and Gas Explor/Production No Yes Yes Marine Pipeline Landfalls No Yes Yes Oil/Gas Port No Maybe Yes LNG Plants No Maybe Yes Gasification Plant (on fill) No No Maybe OSC Platform Construction No No Yes Yards 58 GENERAL SUITABILITY STANDARDS The Statewide goals and guidelines provide standards for use of lands and other resources in the Oregon Coastal Zone. In this section, each goal is reviewed for its suite suitability implications. TABLE 16 NATURAL RESOURCES COVERED BY STATE-WIDE GOALS Resource Goal Inventoried and Mapped Agricultural Lands 3 OCC & DC Forest Lands 4 OCC & DC Recreation Sites 3 OCC & DC Cultural and Historic Sites 5 OCC & DC Natural Areas and Wilderness 5 ONTEC, OCC & DC, ONHP Scenic Areas and Open Space 5 OCC & DC Estuaries 16 OCC & DC Coastal Shorelands 17 OCC & DC Beaches and Dunes 18 OCC & DC Ocean Resources 19 OCC & DC Energy Production Sites 5 Various Hazardous Areas 7 OCC & DC, DGMI Air, Water and Land Quality 6 DEQ OCC & DC = Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission ONTEC = Oregon Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council ONHP = Oregon Natural Heritage Program DGMI = Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries DEQ = Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 59 As shown in Table 16, the resources have generally all been inventoried and mapped by Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission (OCC & DC), the Oregon Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council (ONTC), or the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (OMHP). Although many studies have been done to locate energy production sites, this information has not been collected into a comprehensive inventory. Some of that work has been done in the present study, but still there is not detailed inventory available. The result is that proposed energy production sites may be competing with any of the other resource designations covered by Statewide goals, and there is no clear directive about how priorities are to be assigned. In this section, each resource type is examined briefly and energy facility siting implications are discussed. Agricultural Lands Goal 3 specifies that all lands inventoried as being in agricultural use and having soils in classes 1-IV are to be zoned agricultural and kept for this use. Any conversion, such as to energy facility site, requires that an exception be obtained from the Department of Land Conservation and Develop- ment. Distribution systems (pipelines and high voltage l1nes) would generally be permissible. Forest Lands Goal 4 provides that forest productivity is a highly desirable land use and is not to be sacrificed unless absolutely necessary. Rights-of- ways are allowed if forest productivity is not precluded, and no new utility corridors are allowed through forest lands until existing corridors are fully utilized. Forest lands are generally too steep to be used for most of the other types of energy facilities. Wind energy sites will logically be located in uplands and may require conversion of forest lands to low- growth vegetation types. Recreation Sites Goal 8 requires an inventory of recreation opportunities and utiliza- tion of areas of high recreation potential for this purpose. Upland, coastal shoreland, riverine and marine recreation resources abound in the Oregon Coastal Zone. The OCC & DC inventories ('1974b, c, d) and the State Parks System Plan (1976) have detailed information about locations of recreation resources. Most large energy facilities preclude some or all forms of recreation, and this impact must be carefully weighed. The uniqueness of a recreation opportunity is probably the most sensitive indicator of the magnitude of such impacts, followed by the quantity of recreation impacted. 60 Cultural and Historic Sites The coast is rich in tradition and in sites evoking the important facets of the past. Indian and white cultures have provided a fragile legacy which requires careful management. The OCC & DC inventory of Historical and Archaeological Resources of the Oregon Coast (1975) lists sites ot national, statewide"'county,-i@-ha Ioca-T-importance-in each county. Disturbance of some of the sites is prohibited by state and federal law, and EFSC has designated historical and archaeological sites as unsuitable for location of power generating facilities. Non-EFSC energy facilities should avoid such sites as well, and local plans should fully consider cultural and historical values. Natural Areas Natural areas receive high priority in several goals. These include Goal 5 which specifically requires management of natural areas for natural values if notompeting uses are proposed; Goal 16 which establishes certain natural estuaries; Goal 17 which provides that "major marshes, significant wildlife habitat, coastal headlands, exceptional aesthetic resources, and historic and archaeological sites shall be protected;" Goal 13 which requires that'beach and dune use "be based on the capabilities and limitations of beach and dune areas ... and the need to protect areas of critical environ- mental concern, areas having scenic, scientific, or biological importance, and significant wildlife habitat;"and Goal 19 which requires that fisheries, biological, aesthetic and recreational resources (among others) in the marine environment be conserved. Inventories of estuaries, coastal shorelands, and dunes and beaches have been prepared by OCC & DC (1974a, 1973, 1975b), and land use planning is well along in many shoreline areas (OCC & DC,1975c). These inventories and plans must be consulted in evaluating sites proposed for energy facilities. General priorities of use in coastal areas are as follows (highest to lowest): 1. Promote USES which maintain the integrity of estuaries and coastal waters; 2. Provide for water-dependent,uses; 3. Provide for water-related uses; 4. Provide for non-dependent, non-related uses which retain flexibility of future use and do not prematurely or inalterably commit shorelands to more intensive uses; 5. Provide for development, including non-dependent, non-related uses, in urban areas compatible with existing or committed uses; 61 6. Permit non-dependent, non-related uses which cause a permanent or long-term change in the features of coastal shorelands only upon a demonstration of public need. Table 17 shows how energy facilities relate to these priorities. TABLE 17 RELATIONSHIP OF ENERGY FACILITIES TO THE WATER WATER WATER DEPENDENT RELATED .(Non-Water Related) Power Generation Fossil Nuclear Biomass Solar Ocean X Wind X Hydro X Transmission Lines X X Oil Exploration (offshore) Oil Production (offshore) X Oil Transport X Oil Ports X Marine Pipeline X Refineries X LNG Facilities X OCS Platform X OCS Supply X Pipeline X .62 EFSC prohibited siting of nuclear and fossil-fueled plants in designated natural areas. The following types of designated areas are found in the OCZ and would.be excluded by EFSC for electrical generation plant siting: National Parks and Monuments Wilderness Areas (USFS) Roadless Areas Outstanding Natural Areas (BLM) Research Natural Areas (USFS) Wild/Scenic Rivers (Federal and State) Estuarine Sanctuaries (Federal and State) Endangered Species Habitat USFS Special Interest Areas (Botanical, Geological) National Wildlife Refuge System Oregon Natural Area Preserves Oregon Parks Primary Resource Conservation Areas Areas of Critical State Concern (None exist) Nature Conservation Preserves In addition, valuable but otherwise unprotected sites identified by the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (1977) snould be given careful consideration by local planners and by State officials charged with reviewing site applications. Scenic Areas and Open Space Goal 5 requires that scenic and open space be specifically addressed by plans. Energy facilities located on land or in nearshore areas will affect both qualities and may in some instances be unsuitable due to aesthetic conflicts. Five types of "Image Regions" have been mapped in the Oregon Coastal Zone (OCC & DC, 1974d), ranging from areas with potential for outstanding coastal experience to lands with only weak coastal associ- ation. Recommended land uses in each type of image region range from strict preservation of existing vistas to unrestricted uses. Industrial sites are most restricted under this system, being generally limited to areas of subtle or weak coastal aesthetics, while water-oriented uses (e.g., oil ports, OCS supply bases) are allowed in areas which are more visually associated with the coast. Table 18 illustrates the working of the image regions with regard to energy facilities. Maps showing image regions are contained in the Visual Resource Analysis of the Oregon Coastal Zone (OCC & DC, 1974d). TABLE 18 SUITABILITY OF ENERGY FACILITIES IN COASTAL "IMAGE REGIONS" POTENTIAL FOR HIGH QUALITY COASTAL EXPERIENCE Exceptional Obvious and Strong Less Obvious Subtle Weak Electric Generation Fossil Fuel No No No Yes Yes Nuclear No No No Yes Yes Direct Solar No No Yes Yes Yes Biomass No No Yes Yes Yes Wind Maybe Yes Yes Yes Yes Ocean Power No Yes --- --- --- Hydro No No --- --- --- High Voltage Transmission No No No Yes Yes Oil Exploration No No No Yes Yes Oil Ports, Terminal No No Yes Yes Yes Refinery No No No Yes Yes LNG Facilities No No No Yes Yes Marine Pipeline, Landfall No No Yes Yes Yes Land Pipeline No No Yes Yes Yes Oil Platform Const. Yard No No Maybe Yes Yes OCS Support Bases No No Yes Yes Yes 64 Hazardous Areas Goal 6 requires that land uses in areas subject to geologic hazards or natural disaster be compatible with these factors. Geologic Hazards - The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries has inventoried geologic hazards of the Oregon Coastal Zone and published geologic legend maps and discussions for all lands in the coastal zone. In 1974, the Department evaluated land use implications of eight types of hazards: * Erosion (stream, wind, wave) a Deposition (stream, wind, wave) * Mass Wasting (landslide, mantle creep, rockfall) e Ground Water (high table, ponding, salt water, pollution) * Soil (compressible, weathered, thin) 9 Bedrock (lithology, faults) * Flooding (stream, tidal) e Earthquakes In addition to the reports issued by DGMI, a recent detailed study of shoreline erosion along the coast is available (Stembridge, 1976). When a facility is proposed for a particular site, these documents can be used for a preliminary evaluation of potential geologic hazards. The first step is to determine potential geologic hazards at the site, using the appropriate hazards maps from DGMI. The next step is to use Table 19 to ascertain the relative significance of the hazard(s) for land uses associated with the proposed energy facility. The final step is to verify hazards or lack of hazards through on-site evaluation by experts. Existence of hazards may or may not eliminate the site from consideration, depending on specific circumstances. In all cases, presence of hazards must signal caution for permitting agencies and facility designers. Approval of the proposal would then include appropriate conditions to ensure that potential impacts are reduced or eliminated through proper engineering. For quick reference, Table 20 summarizes the likely relative significance of the geologic hazards for various energy facilities. This table is based upon Table 19. 65 TABLE 19 RELATIVE IMPACT OF HAZARDS ON VARIOUS TYPES OF LAND USES Relative signifi- Erection of LAND USES Material Material cance of hazard Regional Uses Linear Developments to land use Large Structures Dist-harge Extraction -a LP High E U X C a Mo8erote a >1 E 8. E -a_ 0 C 0 Low i2.2 U a a 2 8 -00 .>2 c. 'E i N/A 0) 1:i; -0 W E 0 -0 -a U E 0 a 0 0 9 5t 0) 2. 0 0 0 .__j , I Z Z 0 4) -C 0 ad U 0 Erosion 101 A 'LID, 'fag! IS us Stream 1Q41QIQIQ Iol 0 Wind 0101 1 00000 1 Q I I Wave 00 00000 0 1 Gi Q Q Q 0 1 Q Deposition 7 Stream IQIQIQIQ QIQI 010101 01 1 11 Wind 0101 1 Q 1;@ Q@ 0 101 01 1 1 Wove 010101Q 0 010 0101 1 Mass wasting Landslide 1010IQI* 6101 Q101 1* 0 0 0 IR Q *101 LA Mantle creep 01010 10 0 Q1 0 01 IQ QIQIQIO 0 1 00 D_ - Rockfall 0 QI 0 01 1* 00 Q1 0 Groundwater 1@ X.. 64 High table Q A 0 Q 01 1 00 1 00 Poncling 0 Q 9 00 0 00 Salt water 0 Pollution _0 _0+ 1 00 1 0 Uj Soil F%74QCI@17 0 Sao Compressible 01616161916161 101 IQIQIQtOA-Ll I I I Weathered 0101 1010101 1 1 1 101 1 1 10191 1 1 Thin I 1 10101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10101 1 1 Bedrock CIF Z14 );:71 P.@ W04 ;!k' Z14 r"t F154 rv f@l t:@ rj 0 Q4 Im Lithology 40 10 1 *10 lio 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10101 1 1 Faults 01 10101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 @ K 7,-4 r I @ I . . Flooding 1Q,'4 0.6@0 V, Stream 61610 6101Q 04101 OIQIO 0I*IQI I 0Q Tidal 0101 010IQ 0010 00101 10.1 19 0 A "@x 1, 000 Tsunami 10101 01010 0000 0 0101010101 101 1Q1 L_11 Lartlquakes 1Q101C) 01010 0 0 SOURCE: DGMI, 1974 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Erosion Deposition Mass Ground Water Soil Bedrock Flooding Wasting 0 cu S- 0 E E 41 Q) Q) CA E 4- 0 'D = _r_ 7; 41 10 - 10 = (V a) 'a a) 4@ a) rU 4@ S- > 4J > U 0 E-= 41 rommo 0a) Type of Facilities V) :2C :]c V) :C :3: -j M 0- (n a- U -i U- V) I-- W Electrical Plants: Fossil Im lpplftm Nuclear pp, =Pp @5-1 B i oiTia s s pp, Direct Solar MPPI, pp, mm i ' ' 'I" - 1-11..Ad Ocean Power I I pp, Wind Power Geothermal Hydroelectric pp, @M==== Hi?h Vol tage Transmission Oi /G as Exploration Offshore 0) Oil Exploration Onshore Oil/Gas Production Offshore Oil/Gas Production Onshore PPP' mmm pop, M Oil/Gas Tanker Traffic Np pp- I Marine Pipeline pp, Oil/Gas Port, Terminals MEM I I I I LNG Facility PM PVMM pp@ PPP' mm M Petroleum Refinery Gasification Plant pp, AM PPP'MM PPP1 pp- mm Geopressurized Gas 1, MMPPI PP, ppp@ pp, Pipeline MPPPI PPP' MPPP' pp- mmmpp@ M== OCS Platform Construction PVMM mim OCS Support Base pp, MM wn Relative Significance of Hazard High N Moderate TABLE 20 Low Not Applicable EJ RELATIVE IMPACT OF GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ON ENERGY FACILITIES (After OPGMI, 1974, Table 2) 67 Energy Production Sites Goal 5 requires identification and conservation of sites suited for energy production. As discussed in the first section of this report, in- ventories are available for hydroelectric dam sites (FPC, 1976), for pump- storage sites (ACOE, 1976, 1978), for fossil fuel plants (PNWRBC, 1977), nuclear sites,'wind power (Peterson, 1978), and geothermal. Information about oil and gas areas is also available, and port planning takes into account the potential for increased petroleum transfer facilities. However, no comprehensive inventory of all energy production resources in the OCZ has been compiled. The analysis presented in the first section of this report was derived from many separate sources, and that information could be used as the basis for such an inventory. The next step, dedica- tion of sites for eventual use for energy facilities, is much more complex and would require major additional effort. Air and Water Quality Goal 6 requires that wastes and process discharges meet existing state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules and standards, and that such discharges "shall not (1) exceed the carrying capacity of such resources, considering long range needs; (2) degrade such resources; or (3) threaten the availability of such resources." Air Quality - ONTC (1974) determined that meteorological concerns would not, a priori, preclude fossil-fuel power plants from siting anywhere in the coastal zone, since no appreciable air quality problems now exist. Judg- ments are to be made on individual proposals for individual sites. That process would apply today for any proposed energy facility. DEQ has federally-designated responsibility for enforcement of air quality standards in Oregon, and they would have to issue permits for emissions from any proposed facilities. Determination of compliance with New Source Performance Standards, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Stan- dards, and standards (to be promulgated in 1979) for volatile organics will require detailed modeling of the emissions and the affected airsheds. Because of the PSD requirements, fossil-fuel plants and other heavy air pollutant emitters may be precluded from siting in the coastal lowlands, since plumes would invariably intersect pristine uplands located downwind. (Waddell, WPPSS, personal communication 6-26-78) 68 Water Quality - DEQ has responsibility for protection of water quality. This responsibility makes DEQ a prime actor in evaluating the suitability of sites for petroleum-related facilities, since most freshwater, estuarine, and marine ecosystems have little tolerance for chronic or massive injec- tions of hydrocarbons due to accidental or routine discharges. DEQ also has review and permit authority for all sewage systems and waste discharge systems, and has strict standards for each. Water quality considerations will strongly influence the accept- ability of energy facilities, particularly thermal plants and oil transfer and storage facilities (pipelines, terminals, tank farms, etc). The State Water Resources Board is responsible for allocation of water in the State, and for energy facilities which use large quantities of water (e.g., gasification plants, refineries, and certain types of thermal generating plants), the fact that water supply in the OCZ is often critical may be a strong deterrent to siting there. Many surface waters in the OCZ are withdrawn from allocation or are otherwise excluded from allo- cation for industrial or power production use (OCC & DC. 1974c). Facilities must carefully consider whether adequate and dependable water is available. 69 PERMITS Permits for siting, construction and operation of energy facilities are required from various federal, state and local authorities, depending upon the type of facility, design character- istics, location, and operating patterns. STATE PERMITS Table 21 summarizes the state permits which would likely be required for each type of facility. This list is generalized and other (or fewer) permits might actually be involved for an actual proposal. The state maintains a Permit Coordination Center at the Intergovernmental Relations Division. For large Non-EFSC develop- ments, such as several covered by this study, there is also a Master Application procedure available. For facilities which are under the jurisdiction of EFSC, granting of site certification is preceded by an interagency coordination process, during which all agencies specify conditions in certification which are required for the facility to comply with the agency's standards. Once an EFSC cer- tificate is granted, issuance of individual state agency permits is mandatory. FEDERAL PERMITS Introduction Depending on location and design, energy facilities locating in the Oregon Coastal Zone could require permits from a wide variety of federal agencies. In addition to permits, such facilities could also require federal approvals, leases, right-of-ways, and/or prepara- tion of environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Policy Act. These authorities are in addition to state and local enti- ties which may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the facility. Recent Studies The Northwest Federal Regional Council has completed a three- volume report dealing with the regulatory and licenisin3 requirements affecting bulk energy facilities. Volume I (NFRC 1978a covers thermal power plants, while Volume II (NFRC 1978b) evaluates interstate petroleum pipeline systems. Volume III deals with marine oil (port) transfer facilities. These reports discuss federal and state permit requirements in detail. C:) cc, M-0 e :M C) C) Co n C-) ID orD Ln Ln 0 -n (D -jo -1 r-D-I < rD 0 r) =3 C) L) Cx 0 -3 0 Ln ID M CD ID (D a, 131 0 (D r) -4 M 0 Ln W -0 o X 01 E3 :E It 0;0 ID :3 0 'a WI rD 3 N CD ::@ 7V C > co rD a, (D (D 'V n 00 9n. =3 C) 0 01 rD a, (D M :3 0, S@ C+ r+< :3 (A 2 a 0 W 1< 0 rD Cr LA Cr W CD 0 0 CD 121 (=D rD rD M -n C-) 3@ r- ED -4 C:) Mr- C-) T- L-) r- :K :2! M C:: C-) -a C-) 0 M n CX CL 'D rD Qx -% 0 1;C@ CD 0, (D rD -C a' M -0 E, 0 = W rD E3 0 M (D (D o 0' -0 CD 0=', 02, I'D I rD :3 -1 :z =3 a, I fx '0 -0 'A -0 0) @Q 0. - a, a, @O I+ + E3 '0 M C, D' 0 '+ :E --i' =. as on M- ='0 = =3 r) = It -S :3 -% rD DI. o) C:) -n cl o CI -.o C7 =3 CL= CD cL 0 CL co IDW rD 00 U) P) -1 W -n Ln @E = a' j@.@ F3 Ar). -1 a, -S I+ I+ =3 71 C-) @- CD Ln 0 C:) Le) W - W rD V)W-5 C) V) -1 -0 0, -5 01 rD rD @00 r- -1 UD CL 1+ 0 -% I+ MC7 0 C= < Ln C) _.h n -h -1 o C-) 0' M C CD -V -5 -n 01 M '+ 'I I+ :@. -00)W -0 L/) a Ln 0' rD (D 01 1+ -0 C+ - 2@ C 000, 1+0 0, -a 0 r+ r+ rD B 0 0 o 0 0 -5 - (D 0 -1 -1 rD -0 -V '+0 -S < -1 (D -1 -1 E3 0 0 0- -V 0 0 M-1 + CD un 0 0 '1 -1 -S M to -I C+ It Cx (D CL C' Ln r+ CL 0 Ia. C:, ENERGY SYSTEMS PCP,'IIT Department of Energy Alternative Energy Energy Supplier Wea Energy Conservation 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Energy Facilities S LAND USE PERMIT Department of Environ Permit for Activiti 0 01 1 Area Department of Forestr 0 0 0 0 Permit to Clear Rig 0@ Easement (Permanent 0 0 0 , Forest Land 0 Permit to Enter Clo 0 00 0 0 0 Special Use Permit Department of Geology 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Permit to Drill Geo Permit to Drill Geo Permit to Dri 11 New 0- 0 0 Permit to Drill Str 0 0 Department of Transpor 0 Parks and Recreation 0 0 41 0 0 0 1 1 10 0 0 Land Use Changes,etc. Ocean Shore Developme Ocean Shore Products 0 a (3. 9.0 0 U W- Gcean Shore Pipelines Division of Lands Geothermal ratio Geothermal Lease on S 0 Oil and Gas Explorati Oil, Gas and Sulphur Upland Oil , Cas iiid Sulphur and Submerued-Lands C) 0 G1 M-0 n'In 1) 0, rj) W M Ln V) :) 't --I Z'- :1. --I'm M X: CD 03 11;@ Ln '0 3% -h M r- 00 "1 0 Ln '+ (D 23 4A -1 M 'DI c 0 =r W CD M 2.- M w w r+ 0 w '+1 0;;D 0 cu -5 cu X L4 -n > 11 (D ;3 0 !2.u3 n M -n r+ 0. CD CD 0 co 'D Q, -% cu c-1) CD 0 0 (D tu -1 :2 :' 2 1 (D z3 -1 r+ Itw 1+ 0 v) -h CD (A 0 0 m -n r) :I- r- p --i cp @-a m r- c-) zD r- Ln 'D 'D jD -3 0c+ 2- (DW m m c-) 3 CD (D Q) 0 0. ID I 'a 0 CD C C) M c-) 5 0MG)M = (D M =1 'D = CU M a :E 0 :3 r, 0 3 D a -a 7@ -0 Vro 0. 0 cL,+ a, M a- LAO - a, rt X -n :5 r+:E '-t --h .0 0 w (D = 0 -01 (D lb 01 (D a. 0 CD -0 a-, m 0 -1 w -1 -1 O.Q' , '.t -3 CU MD M -0 a, C) LI) CD LA < 23 --h -5 D, = rD D, (V O@ C) a Q. -3 c+ 2. 0' 0 0 o' '+ 't -o w w A a (A 0' Q. C-) r+ 'V -n -n IV 0 r+ r+ (D a 0 0 M= OQI S! c..) -1 -1 (D -v 1+0 1 (D -1 (D 0 ol I,+ W 11L -11 0 0 ID '3 1+ rD LO -5 c= 10+ 23 3 0 Q, C) 0 -11 (D In I 1 2. a0 @O -5 CD w< r+ CL 0 PLANT-RELATED PERMITS Department of Commerce Building-Co-desDivisio 0 Boiler or Pressure Ve� 0 Boiler or Pressure Ves 0 0 0 0 Building Permit.and Pl 0 0 Electrical Permit/Labe 0 Elevator 0 00 0 10 0 0 0 0 Mechanical Permit 41 0 49 0 0 Plumbing Permit State Fire Marshall N-plosives 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 Flammable and Combusti (Handle, Store, Distr LPG Containers LPG Delivery Trucks LPG Fitters LPG Installer LPG Tank Installation Departmegnatsol Environmen *00 0 0 0 SoTid te Disposal F Approval 0 Solid Waste Disposal S 06 Hazardous Waste Dispos rRANSPORTATION Public Utility Commissio R-ail-Air Program -0 101 0 '0' 0 Permits for Rail-Highw Department of Aeronautics Division c' o 0 :0 Approval of Airport/He 0 Registration/License f Heliport Sites Highway Division Permit to Perform Oper Property (Pipeline, L* 0 0 0 J46 101 0 1 0 Road Approach Construc CD CD a) C C)M OJ rD L/I (A Z) !2.+ --i Z@ 1. = :1_1 to = M CO _n (D 111 (D =7 < (D 0 n 9 M =3 C) M C) It 'D (D W a, 01 I -. 1@11 W W 0. (D '0 0 0 =r _n (D 0 0, (D !2 . 0 =3 0, -u - rD -0 V) QJ -0 :t. I --I 'V M 0 (A -5 M -0 a, -5 x w -S 0;,0 -1 (D =S 0 '0 -n - E3 -n 7@ CL (D rz r- M (D a, (D (D rD -v 0 rD 0, (D rD 0) -5 Q, -5 C@ =3 > 0 UCD r- C: M C= C-) C-) Do C-) rD (D .0 0 + (D rD (D -1 + 0-1 Q, -0 (D >@ a 3 = W r- (D --i (D @-M rD a, rD a, 0 D 0 __O -0 0 La + W = , -3,' " 9 M C-) = I 0 :@ M-M 0"0 -:E 0 rD n 'D 0 -0 -% -1 DI- -(D 00 -1 :Z D, = (D c- 0 -. rD C:) V) a, =3 r+ (D a, -I -n -5 CL 31 -0 -. W + w t3 0 0", -3. @O 0- -0 +0, a, _n Ln 01 0 rD 0 0 :D L,) < - rD @ (D @ a, -1 C) r+ < L@ 0- r) -h a, -h + -1 W C-) Cr C-) C: (D 1, Z-1 C@ :3 0- ='I =-@;,+ -5 rD no, 0 L11 E3 V) Cr 0- C-) t -a -n -n n. c, o @ .0 rD @3 0 0 a. (D =F 0 JW C+ (D 0 -1 g -8. -DO-00 0W -5 0 LO 1+ (D OJ _V 00 -1 11+ C@ -I (D LO rt a 0 Ln W rD I-n -I rD CL rD 0 < C+O OJ '1 0 0 CL AIR QUALITY @rtTen@@of Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 Air Contaminanf -Discharge 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notice of Construction an 1 010, Plans for Air Contaminant 110 0 Indirect Source Construct WATER QUALITY Department of Environmental 00 001 0 00 0 0 0 Sewage Disposal Systems 004--o 0 00 0 0 ____U_O 0 0 0 6 NVULS Water Pollution Dis - -Ulu a *I a lei 0 00 0 4-4- @o 0 0 0 40 Water Pollution Control F 0 0 0 Department of Fish and Wild Exp osives or-R-a-rmful Sub Di,,ision of Lands 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 Permit for Filling or Rem State Waters a. Fill b. Removal C. Fill and Removal d. Flood Repair/Erosio Marine Board Permits for Boat Use in F and State Wild/Scenic R Department of Water Resourc 0 0 Permit to W-ropriate Grot 0 0 0 0 Permit to Appropriate Pub] Sale of Hydroelectric Proj License for Hydroelectric 0 Review of Plans for Major Structures Permit to Construct Reserv 0 Transfer of Water Rights Permit for Non-Conforming 73 Two other studies (Booz, Allen and Hamilton, 1975; Resource Planning Associates, 1976) examined ways to streamline the federal permitting process for energy facilities. Completed prior to forma- tion of the Federal Department of Energy, these reports nevertheless contain a detailed review of agency interests and regulatory activities. Regulatory Roles 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 (NRC) in licensing any type of nuclear fueled power plant, or advisory, as in the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in reviewing and approving other agencies' permits (e.g. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) dredge and fill permits). Any project which touches upon federally managed lands will require some type of permit or clearance from the managing agency (e.g. U.S. Forest Service [USFS], Bureau of Land Management EBLM], Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], 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 Administration [OSHA] enforces safety laws at all facilities). 74 Agency Interests Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) FERC is an independent component of the Department of Energy and regulates petroleum and natural gas in interstate commerce. For interstate projects, FERC issues certificates authorizing construction, extension, acquisi- tion, operation and abandonment of transmission and stor- age facilities. FERC also reviews water rights transfers affecting federal hydroelectric generation capacity. Economic Regulatory Agency (Federal Department of Energy) ERA administers pricing and allocation regulation for petroleum and coal and reviews electrical facilities for need. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) BPA is the marketing agency for power generated at federal hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest, and also operates a large transmission system. BPA becomes involved if hookup to the grid is anticipated or if BPA rights-of-way are affected. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Design of nuclear steam supply systems, plants, siting and construction are regulated by NRC, which also issues operating li@censes. U.S. Forest Service (USFS) USFS issues right-of-way easements and special use permits for lands under its jurisdiction. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) BLM issues right-of-way easements and special use permits for lands under its jurisdiction. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) BIA issues right-of-way easements and special use permits for lands under its jurisdiction. Bureau of Reclamation (BR) Where facilities involve lands or facilities within irrigation projects developed by BR, right-of-way easements and facility permits are required from BR. 75 National Park Service (NPS) Any activity affecting properties administered by the NPS requires a permit. In addition to parks, monuments, recreation areas, and memorials, NPS jurisdiction includes sites on the Register of Historic Places and the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) All bridges and other facilities affecting navigation and safety in the nation's waterways require USCG permits. The Coast Guard also inspects and certifies drill rigs, en- forces laws covering oil transport vessels, and approves oil spill control plans. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) The Corps of Engineers is responsible for processing applications and issuing permits for authorizing structures and work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States. This includes all construction in or affecting streams and coastal shores and waters, and the discharge or dumping of dredging materials. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Any action which may affec+ fish and wildlife must be reviewed and approved by FWS. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) All ACOE permits are reviewed and must be approved by NMFS. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral resources extracting, including oil and gas removal, is under the management authority of the USGS, which must approve all plans for such activities. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA reviews the actions of the State Department of Environmental Quality in issuance of permits for waste water discharge, point and non-point sources of water pollution, and emissions affecting air quality. 76 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Any activity which will affect air transportation or aircraft safety must be reported to the FAA for evalua- tion and clearance. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Installation of microwave systems or use of radio communications equipment in construction or operation requires FCC authorization. Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) ICC approval is required for tariff, rate of depriciation and fair value base rate for pipelines carrying petroleum or other products in interstate commerce. Officeof Pipeline Safety (OPS) The design and construction of pipelines must be approved by OPS (Department of Transportation). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) OSHA sets standards for safety practices at all facilities. Department of Justice (JD); Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Questions of industry structure and competition are reviewed by FTC and JD. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Financial aspects of publicly held corporations involved in facilities development are scrutinized by SEC. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) CEQ reviews and coordinates EISs prepared by land management or regulatory agencies. 77 Regulatory Activities The major activities of federal agencies in regulatory energy facilities are summarized in Table 22 which has been derived from the studies cited above, particularly the report by Booz, Allen and Hamilton (1975). It should be noted that this table is merely a guide and is not definitive--any particular facility might be regulated by more or fewer agencies. Also, while the permit process is relatively well documented for existing types of facilities (e.g. nuclear plants, oil refineries, etc.), the likely permit process is much less certain for facilities which have yet to be commer- cially sited (e.g. direct solar, wind generators, and ocean power). TABLE .22 FEDERAL REGULATORY ACTIVITIES FOR ENERGY FACILITIES V) (D LU V) V) < L_ U C) Ln L_ Lo 2: -C V) @r < < CJ V) = U U C), LU ix (n V) U :2 X (/,) _J 0. < Cl- o- tn C, UJ LU U_ 2M =:) eo UJ U_ M U_ C> 17) U_ V) U 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 L 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,H F 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 P,11F S S S S E co Production P A A PJI F A S S S S E Federal Lands O/G Survey & Expl. F P A A P,M F F F F A S S S S E Production F P A A P,M 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 = Permit Oil Refineries P P A A A M S S S S E F = Permit, Lease, or Onshore O/GANG Ports P F P A A F F F F A S S S S S E R-O-W for its land LNG Pipelines P F P A A F F F F S S S S S E A = Major Approval or Gasification Plants F P A A F F F F A A S s S S E Clearance P 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 I S = Enforces Standards or Laws SOURCES: Booz, Allen and Hamilton (1975); Resources Planning Associates (1976); E = Distributes and Northwest Federal Regional Council (1978). Coordinates EISS REFERENCES Anderson, Donald. Feasibility Study of Mining Alaska Coal and Transportation by Slurry to the West Coast, University of Washington. NTIS: PB 278 755/AS, 1978. Bergvall, J.A., D.C. Bullington and L. Gee. Wood Waste for Energy Study--Preliminary Literature Review. Prepared for Washington House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources by Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1978. Blake, Dave, 5/31/78, Consumer Power, Telephone Conversation and Map of CPI Service Area and Long Range Transmission Plan. Blanchard, R.E., in: Columbia River Estuary Significant Areas- CREST Inventory, SB 100 (1973). Bonneville Power Administration. The Role of the Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific Northwest Power Supply System: Draft Programmatic Environmental Statement and Planning Report, 1977. Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc. Design of a Tracking System for Federal Regulatory Energy Facility Siting Actions. Prepared for the FEA, 1975. Bureau of Governmental Research and Service. Water Use Issues and Decisions for Oregon. Prepared for the Institute for Policy Studies Conference on Water for Oregon's Future, March 31- April 2, 1977 (Portland State University), 1977. Burger, Jeffery. Survey of the Oregon Coastal Port Districts: Xerox Copy: LCDC Library, Salem, Oregon, 1976. Chase, Craig, Federal Department of Energy, Seattle, Telephone conversation of July 3, 1978. Caribou Four Corners Co., Telephone conversation with office manager, 6/22/78. C. Federal Register, Title 33. U.S. Coast Guard, Part 126, Handling of Explosives or Other Dangerous Cargos Within or Contiguous to Waterfront Facilities. CH2M Hill. Long-Range System Planning Guide, Tillamook PUD, November 1977. Connelly, Hernsoo and Kuhns, CPAs, Tillamook PUD. Audit Report, 1977. Coty, U.A. Wind Energy Mission Analysis, Final Report. Lockheed California Company, under contract E4-76-C--3-1075 to ERDA. Vol. I (WEMAFI), 1976. Crinklaw, Howard, Jr., Douglas Electric Cooperative, Inc., Roseburg, Oregon, Telephone conversation of 5/30/78. Dell, J.D. and F.R. Ward. Logging Residues on Douglas-Fir Region Clearcuts: Weights and Volumes. U.S. For. Serv. Res. Paper PNW-115. PNWF & RES, Portland Oregon, 1971. Donahue, W.M., City of Bandon, Bandon, Oregon. Telephone Conversation of 6/5/78. Drake, Bob, Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative, Inc., Telephone Conversation of 5/30/78. Elliott, Dennis L., Pacific NW Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, WA. An Overview of the National Wind Energy Potential , 1978. Falcons, Steve, Port of Coos Bay. Telephone Conversation of 6/26/78. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Pipeline and Producer Regulation, Guidelines for States Preparing Coastal Zone Management Programs--NatLiral Gas Facilities. Gibbs, W.L., Northwest Natural Gas Company, Telephone Conversa- tion of 5/31/78; Letter of 6/12/78. Golding, E.W. The Generation of Electricity by Wind Power. Philosophical Library, New York, New York, 1955. Grantham, J.B., et al. Energy and Raw Material Potential by Wood Residue in the Pacific Coast States--A Summary of a Preliminary Feasibility Investigation. USDA For. Serv. Tech. Report, PNW-18, PNWF & RES. Portland, Oregon, 1974. Harlow, C.J. and C. Oliver. A Technical Proposal to U.S. Department of Energy for Research on Cultural Treatment of Woody Biomass Species. Xerox Copy, 1978. Heilman, P.E., et al. A test of close-spaced, short-rotation culture of black cottonwood. Can. J. For. Res. 2: 456-59, 1972. Hennagin, Brian. Appendix: Cook Inlet Coal: Economics of Mining and Marine Slurry Transport. University of Washington. NTIS: BB 278 756/AS, 1978. Hewson, E.W. Energy fron Wind. Statement by E. Wendell Hewson before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Water Resources of the Interior Committee, U.S. Senate. 2 March 1976, in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 58(l), pp. 33-38, 1977. - . Wind Power Research at Oregon State University, in Wind Energy Conversion Systems, Workshop Proceedings June 11-13, 1973. Hewson, E.W., R.W. Baker, and J.E. Wade. Wind Power Potential in Selected Areas of Oregon. Final Report, No. PUD 77-5, June 1977. Hewson, E.W., John E. Wade, and R.W. Baker. Vegetation as an Indicator of High Wind Velocity (Veg. Wind) Phase I, Final Report. Oregon State University, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Corvallis, Prepared for COE, Contract FY-76-2226, 1977. Hirschfeld, F. Wind Power. Mechanical Engineering, September 1977, pp. 20-28.' Howser, Hugh, Portland General Electric, Telephone Conversation of 6/l/78. Jamison, R.L. The Forest as a Potential Source of Fuel for Energy. Present to Soc. Am. For. in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Johnson, Mike, Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, I Telephone Conversation of June 28, 1978. Klampe, Pat, CH2M Hill, Telephone Conversation of 6/26/78. Klingman, Peter, Oregon Water Resources Research Institute, Telephone Conversation of 5-18-78. Knapp, H.J. Potential of Industrial Wood Residue for Energy. Proceedings of the Forest Products Research Society. Atlanta, Georgia, November, 1976; 1976; pp. 105-110. Komar, P.D. and T.A. Terich. Changes Due to Jetties at Tillamook Bay, Oregon. Oregon State Sea Grant College Program, Reprint Number ORESU-R-77-016, 1976. Kowalczyk, John, Oregon Department of Energy, Telephone Conversation of 6/21/78. Kyarsten, W.J., Memorandum: Exceptions Process, March 15, 1978. MacPherson, Linda (Cogan & Associates), EPA Case Study. Xerox copy. Madison, Jack H., Tillamook PUD, Telephone Conversation of 5/30/78. -, Letter of 5/31/78. National Area Preserves Advisory Committee, 1975. Oregon's Natural Area Preserves Program, First Report to State Land Sound of the Committee's activities 1973-75. New England River Basins Commission/RALI Project, Factbook: Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Development, Boston, Massachusetts. Newton, V.C., Jr. Summary of Oil and Gas Exploration off the Coast of Oregon and Washington, 1961-66. The Ore Bin, 29(2), February, 1967. Northwest Federal Regl. Council Permit Issuance Study, Vol. I; Regulating Requirements Impacting Thermal Power Plants, April 3, 1978, and Vol II: Regulatory Requirements Impacting on Oil Pipeline Systems, March 5, 1977. Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission. Final Report, March 1975a. . Beaches and Dunes of the Oregon Coast. Prepared by USDA Soil Conservation Service, March 1975b Coastal Wetlands of Oregon. A Natural Resource Inve-Ftory Report, Prepared by Glenn C. Akins and Carol A. Jefferson, August 1973. -. Estuaries Resources of the Oregon Coast. A Natural Resource Inventory Report. Prepared by Wilsey and Ham, Inc.,, Portland, Oregon, September 1974a. -. Fish and Wildlife Resources, Oregon Coastal Zone. Prepared by Ken Thompson, Oregon Wildlife Commission, and Dale Snow, Fish Commission of Oregon, October 1974b. . Freshwater Resources of the Oregon Coastal Zone. Prepared by the State Water Resources Board, December 1974c. . Historical and Archaeological Resources of the Oregon Coas:E. A Resource Inventory Report. Prepared by Stephen Dow Beckham, Linfield College, September 1974e. An Inventory of Development Pressures in the Coastai Zone. Prepared by Pacific Planning Associates, Newport, Oregon, 1975c. . Resource Analysis of Oregon's Coastal Uplands. Prepared by Moreland/Unruh/Smith, Eugene, Oregon, January 1975d. . Visual Resource Analysis of the Oregon Coastal Zone. Prepared by Walker, Havens and Erickson, Eugene, Oregon, October 1974d. Oregon Energy Council. Transitions. Prepared by the Office of Energy Research and Planning, Office of the Governor, State of Oregon, January 1, 1975. Oregon Department of Energy. Oregon's Energy Future: Second Annual Report, 1978. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Interoffice Memo of 5 January, 1978. Staff Report Proposed GATX Crude Oil Transfer Facility at Port Westward near Clatskanie, Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Salem, Oregon, Environmental Geology of Inland Tillamook and Clatsop Counties, Oregon, Bulletin 79, 1973. . Environmental Geology of Lincoln Co., Oregon, Bulletin 81, 1973. Environmental Geology of Coastal Lane Co., Oregon, Bulletin 85, 1974. . Environmental Geology of Western Coos Bay and Douglas Counties, Oregon, Bulletin 87, 1975 . Land Use Geology of Western Curry Counties, Oregon, Bulletin 90, 1976. . Geologic Hazards Inventory of the Oregon Coastal Zone, Miscellaneous Paper 17, 1974. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Likelihood of Energy Facility Siting in the Oregon Coastal Zone, Task I, Preliminary Draft Report, Mathematical Sciences NW, Inc., 30 June 1978. Oregon Highway Division, Parks and Recreation Branch. Oregon State Parks System Plan 1975-1981. Draft Copy, Oregon Natural Heritage Program. Oregon Natural Areas--Data Summary, 1977. Oregon Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council, 1974, State-Wide Siting Task Force Report, July 1974. Peterson, S.N. et al. Wind Energy Studies (Pacific Northwest Region), Final Report for the Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District Contract No. DACW 68-77-C-D174. Petroleum Publishing Company, Offshore Contractor and Equipment Directory, 7th Edition, 1975. Power Planning Committee, Pacific NW River Basins Commission. Review of Power Planning in the PNW Co., 1975. Resources Planning Associates, Inc., Using a Management Action System to Streamline the Federal Energy Regulatory Process: Volume 2: Comparative Analysis. Prepared for FEA, Contract CR-05-60512-00, December 6, 1976. The Science and Public Policy Program. Energy Alternatives: A Comparative Analysis. University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1975. Smith, George, West Oregon Electric Cooperative, Inc., Vernonia, Oregon, Telephone Conversation of 6/5/78. Stembridge, J.E. Recent Shoreline Changes of the Oregon Coast. Paper prepared for the International Geographical Union Commission on Shoreline Erosion, 1976. Swancutt, Dale C., Blachly-Lane County Co-op Electric Association. Telephone Conversation of 5/31/78. . Letter of 6/6/78. Ubank, Bill, Brown and Root, Inc. Telephone Conversation of 6/21/78. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Preliminary Environmental Assessment on Public Notice No. 071-DYA-1-001744 (Wharves, Columbia River Mile 54 in Columbia County, near Clatskanie, Oregon), April 11, 1978. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Draft BLM Wilderness Policy and Review Procedure. Xerox Copy, 1978. U.S. Dept of Transportation, Coast Guard. Liquefied Natural Gas, Views and Practices Policy and Safety. CG-478, February, 1976. Vaughn, Port of Umpqua, Telephone Conversation of 6/26/78. Westlund, Dan, Clatskanie PUD, Telephone Conversation of 5/31/78. White, Tom, Portland District ACOE, Telephone Conversation of 5/16/78. Winters, Brian, Chief Engineer, Central Lincoln PUD, Telephone Conversation of 5/31/78. Letter of 6/2/78. Irv 3 6668 000o 1 1520