This is the News

NorthernStar Natural Gas | June 4, 2008

PORTLAND, Ore. – Bradwood Landing LLC today submitted its Biological Assessment for its proposed liquefied natural gas import terminal near Astoria to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Biological Assessment will be used by FERC, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) to create a Biological Opinion which will encompass the final environmental plan for the Bradwood terminal and determine that the project is consistent with federal environmental goals.

The Biological Assessment is a disclosure document prepared to address information necessary for formal consultation between a federal agency (FERC and/or a project applicant, in this case Bradwood Landing) and NMFS and USFWS (the "Services"). Bradwood Landing worked early in the project development phase to ensure that the potential impacts of its project on listed species are adequately addressed.

The 3,700 page Biological Assessment includes Bradwood’s voluntary Salmon Enhancement Initiative (SEI), which at $59 million, represents the largest private commitment to improve watershed health on the Lower Columbia River. Using NMFS’ own methodology to model the benefits of the SEI, the program is projected to improve salmon survival by 1.77 million juvenile fish per year. This would represent 50 percent of NMFS’ own survival improvement target for ocean-type fish, such as salmon.

Together with the Biological Assessment, Bradwood submitted its environmental Compensatory Mitigation Plan to FERC. The mitigation plan is a key part of the Biological Assessment, and will used by state and federal agencies to determine compliance with mitigation standards. Bradwood’s mitigation plan far exceeds state and federal requirements and together with the voluntary SEI comprises Bradwood’s overall environmental commitment.

"Bradwood Landing is committed to sustainable development and a lasting legacy of environmental, excellence," said NorthernStar Natural Gas CEO William "Si" Garrett. "Our project includes comprehensive mitigation measures and a long term environmental commitment that ensures a significant and sustained net benefit to salmon productivity and the Lower Columbia ecosystem."

On March 20, the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners approved Bradwood's consolidated land use application after a nine-month public process. The LNG terminal and its associated 38 mile pipeline would provide a new source of natural gas directly into the Oregon and Washington natural gas market. It would create more than 450 jobs over three years of construction and 65 permanent jobs while contributing more than $7.8 million annually in taxes to Clatsop County. Today’s submission of the Biological Assessment and Mitigation Plan are a further step in the permitting of the Bradwood Landing terminal which could begin construction in 2009 and be operational by 2013.

"Our terminal will provide a needed new supply of natural gas to the Northwest, help stabilize energy costs, create jobs, pay for all necessary safety and security upgrades on the Columbia River and provide a net ecological benefit for the Lower Columbia River. This is truly a new model for sustainable development and corporate responsibility," said Garrett.

FACT SHEET
Bradwood Landing’s Salmon Enhancement Initiative

Over and above avoidance and minimization of impacts and robust mitigation, Bradwood Landing is committing $59 million to establish and sustain the Salmon Enhancement Initiative to improve salmon productivity in the Columbia estuary and overall ecosystem health. The SEI goes far beyond any regulatory requirements and will ensure that the Bradwood Landing project provides a significant and sustained net benefit to salmon and the lower Columbia ecosystem. This commitment represents the largest private investment ever made to preserving and enhancing the salmon population in the Columbia River estuary.

The SEI would be guided by a steering committee composed of regional restoration interests (tribes, agencies, organizations) and convened by the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation will serve as the SEI’s fiscal agent. The $59 million in SEI funding includes:

• $7 million for early actions (during the three years between the start of construction and project operation); and
  
  
• $1.3 million a year (adjusted for inflation) for the estimated 40-year life of the project. Ten percent of the funding will give additional emphasis to resources that are of special cultural value to Indian tribes (such as Pacific lamprey).

Impressive results To develop a measure of what the SEI could do to improve estuary conditions for salmon an "effects analysis" was performed using the National Marine Fisheries Services’ Estuary Restoration Program Module, which identifies 23 estuary restoration measures and a salmon survival improvement estimate for each. The analysis shows that:

• With a modest (3:1) leveraging of public to private funds, the Bradwood SEI funding could improve salmon survival by 1.77 million juvenile fish per year.

• This represents 50 percent of NMFS’ own Survival Improvement Target for ocean-type fish and 30 percent for stream-type fish for the Lower Columbia estuary.

To secure Bradwood’s environmental commitment, the Salmon Enhancement Initiative will be defined in a memorandum of agreement and included as part of the proposed action in the Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion for the project.

Bradwood Landing’s avoidance and mitigation measures
Bradwood Landing has designed its terminal to avoid and minimize impacts to fish and wildlife to the greatest extent possible and to virtually eliminate operational impacts at the facility to fish and wildlife. Specific avoidance and minimization measures include:

• Restructuring the facility to a compact footprint (about 40 acres of the 411-acre property);
• Reducing the number of pilings needed by using larger diameters, thereby reducing in-water construction time, and completing work when the fewest fish are present;
• Adapting proven state-approved fish screens to avoid entrainment of juvenile fish (including listed salmon) into ship ballast tanks and engine cooling systems;
• Using horizontal directional drilling to route the pipeline under streams and wetlands to avoid and minimize impacts from pipeline construction; and
• Dredging for the ship turning basin will be in an area formerly used as a deepwater dock that is already deeper than 20 feet, deeper than the typical habitat for juvenile salmonids.

To compensate for impacts, Bradwood will go beyond normal industry standards to:

• Acquire, protect and restore 240-acre Svensen Island in the Columbia Estuary and restore 65 acres of diked areas to tidal marsh and off-channel habitat to mitigate for the filling of 14 acres of man-made wetlands (including the old mill log pond) within the project area;
• More than replace wetland acreage and function lost by conversion of forested wetlands in Washington by restoring and enhancing, or creating, wetlands at up to a 7:1 ratio;
• Restore 225 acres of native floodplain wildlife habitat within Oregon;
• Conserve an additional 800 acres of prime habitat for Columbian white-tail deer; and
• Restore estuarine fish habitat to compensate for lost habitat above required standards.

Biological Assessment Q&A

1. What is the purpose of the Biological Assessment (in the context of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and a final permit)?

a. The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – collectively known as "the Services" – to ensure that proposed Federal activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. FERC is the lead agency in this process, working closely with the Services. The Services encourage Federal action agencies to work with them early in the project development phase to ensure that discussions about the potential impacts of a Federal project or permit on listed species are adequately addressed. This early dialogue is referred to as pre-consultation and can also include the non-federal applicant (in this case Bradwood Landing). In this way, both the Services and the Federal action agency (and the non-federal applicant) are able to identify potential problems and solutions without delaying projects unnecessarily. The Federal action agency is responsible for determining the effects of a proposed action. If they determine that the action is not likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species and the Service concurs in that determination, the obligation to comply with the ESA is fulfilled.

b. When a proposed project is likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, the Services and an action agency enter into formal consultation. During formal consultation, the action agency and the Services may work together to identify what steps may be incorporated into a proposed project or into the biological opinion (the Services author the biological opinion and rely heavily upon the biological assessment, submitted by the Federal action agency but often prepared by the non-federal applicant, to define the proposed project and its effects on listed species and habitats to minimize effects on listed species or critical habitat. These steps are often minor adaptations to the project that the action agency and the applicant are willing to undertake to reduce the harmful effects, and in some cases provide benefits, to listed species. Action agencies and applicants often refer to these modifications as "mitigation."

c. When preparing a biological opinion, the Services are required by the ESA and its implementing regulations to include an incidental take statement that specifies reasonable and prudent measures and implementing terms and conditions to minimize the impacts of incidental take (incidental take is not just defined as death of an organism, but is also defined as harm, harassment, capture, etc; incidental means it occurs incidental to carrying out an otherwise legal activity).

d. In general, biological assessments are disclosure documents prepared to address information necessary for formal consultation between a federal agency (referred to as the "action agency") and NMFS and USFWS. The Biological Assessment prepared by Bradwood Landing is intended to address the two information request letters received in April and May 2007 from USFWS and NMFS, respectively, and incorporate clarifying information resulting from eight months of pre-consultation meetings between Bradwood Landing, the Services, and FERC. The primary gap in the initial FERC BA was insufficient analysis of effects on listed species and their habitats. The Bradwood Landing Biological Assessment began with FERC’s March 2007 Biological Assessment and was re-written to address the comments from NMFS and USFWS, as well as to present updated project information that resulted from on-going permit processes such as Clatsop County’s local permitting that shaped the changes to conceptual designs of Clifton Road.

Relative to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the National Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA), is our country’s basic charter for the general protection of the environment. It established policies, goals, and a mechanism for reaching these goals. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA requires all Federal agencies to analyze the impacts of their proposed actions/programs and to include other agencies and the public in the process. Compared to a NEPA analysis found in Environmental Impact Statements which addresses all aspects of environmental impacts from socio-economic to geologic to environmental justice, the ESA requires that the BA provide a more detailed analysis in terms of the description of the proposed project, the potential effects on listed species, and offsetting actions.

2. What items are addressed by the Biological Assessment? The BA must provide:

a. A description of the proposed project (a detailed project description including information on construction timing and sequencing, design drawings, and operational information. Also includes all avoidance and minimization measures and offsetting actions (or compensatory mitigation);

b. An analysis of effects of the project on listed species and habitats including baseline conditions (a description of the habitat and general features of the action area including definition of the action area);

c. A species list including designated critical habitats occurring in the action area; and

d. A detailed effects analysis including effects determinations and request for consultation with federal agencies (NMFS and USFWS).

3. How will the information in the Biological Assessment be used by reviewing agencies?

a. See above description of the consultation and preparation of biological opinion. The BiOp as it is commonly called is the authorization (or not) of the Federal proposed action.

4. Who are the reviewing agencies federal and state agencies?

a. USFWS (Portland office lead) and NMFS (Portland office lead) are the regulatory reviewers.

b. FERC is considered the Federal action agency, and their cooperating agencies including the USACE and the U.S. Coast Guard also review and submit the document.

c. Other federal and state agencies will review and comment on the Biological Assessment to FERC and potentially the Services including Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the Washington Department of Ecology, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, and the Oregon Department of State Lands.

5. What was involved in the preparation of the Biological Assessment (time, cost, studies)?

a. BA timeline: Discussions with the Services began at project scoping through the notice of intent which began in 2005. Interagency meetings and site visits occurred through 2007. NMFS and USFWS had opportunities to comment on the resource reports prepared for FERC in 2006, as well as on the first draft of the NSNG prepared BA in October (with a supplement in November) of 2006, the FERC BA submitted to the Services in March 2007, and on the DEIS published in August 2007. The Services provided information request letters to FERC in April and May of 2007. NSNG made response filings from June through August 2007, and Pre-consultation meetings with FERC occurred from August 2007 through March 2008. NSNG prepared responses and ultimately prepared a revised applicant-prepared BA which was submitted to FERC in today.

b. BA cost: Approximately $6 million including all related studies and costs.

c. Effort: The BA represents three years of field and literature studies performed by dozens of biologists and engineers.

6. Who reviews the Mitigation plan and how is that used?

The mitigation plan is a key element in the Biological Assessment, and is also used by numerous state agencies to determine compliance with mitigation standards. Since each agency has differing standards depending on the resources impacted (wetland habitat, upland habitat, etc.), they will use the portion of the mitigation plan that applies to determine compliance. The Mitigation Plan has been provided in its entirety to allow for complete review by all agencies.

7. What happens next?

FERC will review the BA during the next 30 days.
If FERC determines that the BA contains "complete information" the agency will adopt it and request a formal consultation with the services. It usually takes 135 days to complete consultation if a BA contains "complete information."

Download PDF (43 KB pdf file)