Seven Oregon state lawmakers have submitted a letter opposing a request to extend the public comment period for the Jordan Cove Energy Project.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed 229-mile natural gas pipeline on March 29. The public comment deadline is July 5. The document is more than 1,100 pages and includes 34 appendices, many of which are hundreds of pages.

On April 11, Oregon U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio and Sen. Ron Wyden submitted a letter to FERC requesting an extension to the public comment period. They cited concerns that landowners don’t have enough time to review the document and submit comments. Many rural landowners don’t have internet access, and the document is only available online or at public libraries.

On April 17, a group of state lawmakers, including Sen. Dallas Heard, R-Roseburg, and Rep. Gary Leif, R-Roseburg, submitted a letter to FERC opposing Wyden and DeFazio’s extension request. They said the 98-day comment period is enough time for adequate review, and an extension would only further delay the project.

Rep. Caddy McKeown, D-Coos Bay, and Sen. Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, also submitted the letter opposing the extension. A natural gas export terminal for the project has been proposed in Coos Bay.

Wyden and DeFazio’s request was a response to landowners’ complaints that the public comment period is insufficient to fully review environmental impacts of the pipeline.

The pipeline’s proposed path would cross more private landowners’ properties in Douglas County than any other county.

“Given the considerable size of this project, the fact that the project affects landowners in four separate Oregon counties, and the fact that the (document) itself is more than 1,000 pages, we believe a 90-day public comment period is an inadequate amount of time for the public to review and make comments,” read the letter submitted to FERC by DeFazio and Wyden.

They also encouraged FERC to further engage with Native American tribes whose lands will be affected.

“There are several tribes with strong cultural and historical interests in the affected areas, the federal government has a responsibility to engage in meaningful and robust government-to-government consultation,” read the letter.

FERC did not respond to The News-Review’s inquiry regarding a decision on the extension request.

The letter stated many rural landowners lack high-speed internet necessary to download and review the document. FERC hasn’t provided paper copies of the document to affected landowners, who said the option of viewing the document in public libraries still presents a substantial barrier.

In a response letter, state lawmakers opposed the extension and said the current comment period is sufficient.

“While I agree on certain points made in the letter, I have serious concerns about extending the comment period for this Project,” the letter said. “And while I agree that Oregonians need to have genuine public engagement in the FERC’s review of the project, I believe the current 98-day comment period is an adequate amount of time for the public to review and make comments.

“Extending the comment period for the project would only serve to delay, not further inform, the permitting process,” read the letter.

Frank Adams, a landowner in Winston whose property would be crossed by the pipeline, filed a complaint with FERC on April 26, stating there are significant barriers to his review of the document.

“As a veteran who fought for this country, I am deeply disappointed that the U.S. government would allow a foreign company to take my land in order to ship gas to another continent,” Adams said.

“I do not have internet in my home or on my property. As I understand it, Jordan Cove filed a letter on the internet with FERC on April 16, 2019, noting that they had distributed ... hard copies to libraries. This is not a practical solution for giving rural Oregon landowners sufficient access and time to the (documents) to properly review it.

“As a full-time rancher, the library’s hours do not allow me nearly enough time to review the (documents),” Adams said.

He said he didn’t have access to the document on the date of his complaint, and if he obtained access, he would need at least 90 days to review it.

Separately, a group of landowners filed a motion on April 18 to strike the current environmental impact statement, stating it doesn’t provide adequate opportunity for review. The motion also requested FERC send paper copies of the document to affected landowners and extend the public comment period to 180 days. More than 40 landowners signed onto the request.

“Landowners demonstrate that the (draft environmental impact statement) and comment period are constitutionally and statutorily insufficient,” said Tonia Moro, an attorney representing the landowners. “Landowners are extremely confident that correcting the document, ensuring landowners have access to the document and extending the comment period to 180 days will lead to many more meaningful comments which are necessary to minimize the risk of an erroneous decision.”

In a letter to FERC responding to the extension request, Jordan Cove stated the extension should not be granted because the public comment period is longer than those of other similar projects. Oregon state lawmakers made the same argument in their letter opposing the extension.

The landowners’ motion states that while the 98-day public comment period is about 40 days longer than that of other proposed pipeline projects, the Jordan Cove draft environmental impact statement is about five times the size of the other projects.

The final environmental impact statement and FERC’s final decision are scheduled on Oct. 11 and Jan. 9, 2020, respectively.

Max Egener can be reached at megener@nrtoday.com and 541-957-4217. Or follow him on Twitter @maxegener.

React to this story:

2
0
0
0
9

City Reporter

Max Egener is the city reporter for The News-Review. He has a master's degree from the University of Oregon, and is an avid skier and backpacker.

(12) comments

Jobuliga27

I wish people would drop the conservative or democratic comments regarding this issue. Yes they are Republicans but the real issue is the use of ID in this situation. I was all for the use of ID in the putting in if I-5 as it benefited the public, but in this case I am not seeing any local public benefits. Secondly, neither one of these guys are very bright and both of them will tell you what you want to hear, because they are politicians.

Caila

HERE HERE! WELL SAID!

S

Well so much for Douglas County honoring Veteran's. They need to take the signs down at the county line. Your elected officials Leif and Heard standing against their own constituents so a Canadian Corporation can profit at the expense of American citizens. We need a recall!

Caila

I know, right? It makes me wonder if their pockets are being lined. Seriously. And if they are asked, I don't know that I would trust them being honest after their stance on this.

Rockyboy

Strange that Leif and Heard, supposedly conservatives, would support the taking of private property for a foreign business project. Some conservatives! And then to oppose public participation, particularly the participation of affected private landowners. Methinks that rather than conservatives, these politicians, like many who call themselves conservative, are instead hacks for big business.

S

Yep. It's not even for a public benefit. It is the use of eminent domain for private gain . . . and even worse it is a foreign corporation making profits for Canadian shareholders at the expense of Douglas County citizens.

Caila

"eminent domain for private gain" ergo the problem with it!

Caila

Absolutely!

bohica13

Coos Bay would prosper greatly by this terminal. If they vote against it they DESERVE to be drowning in unemployment.

S

Educate yourself. The jobs lost because of the project will not be replaced with the exception of about 100 jobs [specialty jobs that will require relocation of workers to the area] more jobs will be lost than gained.

CitizenJoe

Leif and Heard have no interest in knowing what their constituents think, nor in science. It is all about power. As Humpty Dumpty said: "The question is, which is to be master – – that is all." This certainly *doesn't* remind me of other Republicans, no, not at all.

Caila

Well said... it is like one is following the tail of the one in the lead...

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.