(1) rogerfindley@q.com> 01/12/09 7:10 AM
Adam:
Stop Idaho Power has heard that ODOE has issued a Project Order to Idaho Power for the B2H line. What was the date for that, and how do we get a copy of the Project Order? Did ODOE define the impact analysis area? What is it? Have the other alternatives been incorporated in the impact analysis areas?
Thanks for your help.
Roger
(2) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:46:24 -0800> From: Adam.Bless@state.or.us> To: rogerfindley@q.com Subject: Re: B2H Project Order to IPCo? Stop Idaho Power
Roger,
ODOE has not yet issued the Project Order. I have drafted the Project Order, but our Attorney General had quite a few comments, which I am now incorporating. I do hope to issue it in the next week, but I can't be certain. The draft project order does have analysis areas for the various standards. There isn't a single analysis area; actually we set a different analysis area for each type of impact.
My draft Project Order does direct Idaho Power to seriously consider several alternative routes. Three of those routes are the three in your earlier letter, particularly the one straight from Hemingway to Sand Hollow through Canyon County. The arguments made by SIP and John Beal in favor of going straight through Idaho were quite convincing, at least to me. Other people further West suggested route changes in their counties as well, and the draft project order directs Idaho Power to consider them also.
I was concerned when I received a letter asking ODOE to not issue a Project Order. I hope people understand that a Project Order is not an approval of anything; it's more like a summary of the comments and issues. Its purpose is to set the expectations for the applicant, not to approve or deny anything. It's similar to the scoping report that BLM must put out. I think you will see that when we issue it. As you have probably noticed, BLM is also taking more time to issue the scoping report than they originally planned.
Please rest assured that when we do issue the Project Order, we'll post it so everyone can see it.
Also, remember that the Project Order is a living document and we can change it anytime if there's a need to do that.
Sorry this is taking so long.
Adam
(3) <rogerfindley@q.com> 01/13/09 7:12 AM
Thanks for the reply, Adam.
According to the EFSC process on the bubble-bar chart given to citizens at the scoping meeting, the Project Order "defines the impact analysis areas." SIP assumes that those are on-the-ground areas where impacts will occur and where those impacts will be analyzed.
When EFU-zoned land is to be impacted, at least one viable alternative must be considered outside of EFU land. Idaho Power has not indicated that any additional routes will be considered for analysis that bypass EFU land in Malheur County. It appears to SIP that the Notice of Intent was incomplete and needs to be revised and resubmitted with addition of at least one alternative route outside of EFU land in Malheur County before the Project Order can be issued and the impact analysis areas defined.
SIP does not believe Idaho Power is serious about considering routes bypassing EFU land in Malheur County based on recent information we have learned that they (Idaho Power) are now planning to place their substation on private land in Idaho nearer to Adrian, Oregon, rather than on BLM land near Sand Hollow in Idaho. The 'sleeping giant' in Idaho is waking, and citizens' groups there are forming to keep this line out of their farm ground and away from their homes as well. SIP believes Idaho Power still thinks it will be easier, and less deadly to their public relations in Idaho, to deal with the farmers/residents in Malheur County and condemn their land than to deal with the farmers/residents in Idaho or with the environmental groups on public land.
SIP's alternative #2, which bypasses all EFU land in Malheur County and all farmland in Idaho, needs to be analyzed as part of the NEPA process and needs to be a serious contender for routing of this line if the 'loop' around Treasure Valley as proposed in the Treasure Valley Electric Plan, which in no way was a plan representative of the citizens to be affected, ultimately is to be built.
One final question: are there any legal requirements by the state of Oregon regarding the ways and means by which Idaho Power (or any utility proposing a project with major impacts to private landowners) must inform individuals about the impending line, particularly those directly under the line? More and more individuals are coming forward to say that they are just now learning about this line for the first time. Does the scoping process need to be restarted so that all interested parties can have a chance to participate and comment?
Thanks again for your help.
Roger
(4) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:22:38 -0800> From: Adam.Bless@state.or.us> To: rogerfindley@q.com> CC: Tom.Stoops@state.or.us Subject: RE: B2H Project Order to IPCo? Stop Idaho Power
Roger,
You have asked some questions about the EFSC process, the NOI, and the Project Order.
The Project Order does several things, and one of the most important sections of the Project Order is the section that shows the analysis areas. Those are the areas where impacts must be analyzed. We often set the analysis areas a little larger than the actual impact, to create a buffer zone. For example, for endangered species ODFW usually recommends an analysis area that extends a few hundred feet beyond the area where there will be physical impacts.
Different types of impacts have different analysis areas. For instance - for Cultural resources we usually specify an analysis area that covers the site but does not go beyond it. On the other hand, for scenic impacts we usually specify an analysis area that is much wider than the proposed corridor. The amount depends on the type of facility, because some facilities are more visible than others.
I agree that Idaho Power's EFSC NOI should include at least one viable alternative or reasons why only one route was feasible. The rules do not say whether the alternatives must be completely different routes or if they can be short "detours" like the ones that show up as green lines on the map in the NOI. In any case, the Project Order is the document where we direct Idaho Power to consider other alternatives beyond what they offered in the NOI.
You have not yet seen the draft Project Order, but it does tell Idaho Power to consider specific alternatives. The three alternatives shown in the map you sent with your written comments are listed in the Project Order as alternatives that must be seriously considered. I agree that your Alternative #2 must be considered. However, I do have a question for you about alternative 2: - does it inadvertenty affect Durkee? It looks from the map like alternative 2 heads right for Durkee. I have received much correspondence from folks in Durkee, especially Diane Bloomer. As you can understand, ODOE's efforts to help one community should not come at the expense of a different community.
I also agree that for EFU land, IPC must show that "reasonable alternatives have been considered" and can only be rejected if those non-EFU alternatives are shown to be unfeasible under the criteria in section 2 of 215.275. The application is where they must do this. Our draft Project Order makes this very clear. So even though the NOI didn't include the alternatives analysis set forth in ORS 215.275 , the application will have to.
In my draft Project Order I have taken the position that Idaho Power must treat farm land in Idaho as a serious alternative to EFU land in Oregon, because Idaho does not prohibit residential development on farm land as Oregon does. I based that position mostly on comments from John Beal but I think it's consistent with SIP's position. I have asked our Attorney General to confirm this position. I realize there will be pushback from Idaho. BLM forwarded to us a letter from the city of Parma, protesting the placement of the powerline near an area where they expect some urban growth. In ODOE's opinion, that expectation is not sufficient to meet the test of ORS 215.275.
There was a time when ODOE could deem the NOI incomplete and refuse to process it further until it was "complete". In fact we used to issue "RAI's" (Request for Additional Information) on NOI's. But in 1993 the legislature changed the focus of the NOI and removed ODOE's authority to deem an NOI "complete" or "incomplete". In retrospect I believe they made a good decision, although you may disagree. The principle was that the NOI was never intended to be a decision making document. It's a "heads up", nothing more. Its purpose is to get people's attention, identify problems and generate comments from the public and from our fellow reviewing agencies. We have received hundreds of comments which identify many issues, so I would say the NOI did its job. But remember, the NOI is not a decision making document and does not result in the approval or denial of anything.
Based on the response to the NOI, we will direct Idaho Power to consider alternatives that were not in their original NOI. I think that's consistent with what you're asking. For that reason, I think it's important that we do issue the Project Order. It's legally required, and it's the right thing to do. The Project Order is the document where we point out the problems in Idaho Power's original plan, direct them to look at alternatives and provide our expectations regarding the Application. In short, the Project Order is where we give some regulatory significance to the issues raised in comment.
Thank you for the heads up about any possible new plans to change the substation. I speak regularly with both Eric and Lucas and neither of them has mentioned that. As recently as a week ago Eric told me on the phone that they are still planning the Sand Hollow substation. Also thank you for the heads up about citizen's groups in Idaho. We need to reach a compromise that both states can agree on. Otherwise we risk Federal preemption. No one wins if that happens.
Finally, you asked about the notice requirements. Those requirements are found at OAR 345-015-0110, which in turn refers to the list of adjacent property owners described at OAR 345-020-0011. In plain English, it's very similar to land use law - it requires notice to owners of property within 500 feet of the proposed corridor. The rule requires Idaho Power to get those names from the county property tax assessor's most recent roll. Certainly that would include people right under the line.
However, Idaho Power will likely change the route in response to the comments. When they submit the Application for Site Certificate, it might show a route that is quite different from the one shown in the NOI. We would consider that a valid response to the public suggestions. If that happens, it does not start the process all over again. If it did, that would create an infinite loop from which there would be no escape. The people who own property adjacent to the proposed corridor in the application will receive notice of the application, and will have ample opportunity to participate and comment.
Feel free to write of call at anytime.
Adam
(5) 1-14-2009
Thanks, Adam, for your thorough reply. We surely appreciate all the time and attention you are giving us on this important county issue.
A point of clarification: our Alternative #2 is meant to basically END at the Malheur County line. Idaho Power's TVEP shows a loop around the larger Treasure Valley; hence, the line would go to the east behind Farewell Bend and Weiser, but we propose it goes north at whatever would be a good route for the Durkee folks.
From information received from the electrical people we are working with, we understand that only a switching station is necessary when a line splits (one leg to the north, one to the west). We would be happy to sit down with BLM, Idaho Power, and anyone from Durkee/Baker County to put the route at the north end of Malheur County that would best meet the needs of the Durkee farmers, other folks in Baker County, Idaho Power, and sage grouse, which is the only resource of a highly controversial nature in that part of the world at the Malheur/Baker County line (I was the Range Conservationist for that country for a number of years, as well as botanist for the Vale District BLM).
SIP tried to make it clear that our proposed Alternative #2 route is a 2-3 mile CORRIDOR, with considerable flexibility for exact route location. There are many options for exact locations from Vines Hill on Highway 20 to the north that completely miss EFU land in Malheur County, which is of course our goal.
Jean
