The Bellingham Herald

Proposed pipeline for Canada clears first hurdle
ENVIRONMENT: Canadian approval also needed before Sumas-Cherry Point line can be built.

Ericka Pizzillo, The Bellingham Herald

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Wednesday approved the U.S. portion of a proposed pipeline that would take natural gas from mainland British Columbia to Vancouver Island through Whatcom County.

The Georgia Strait Crossing Project pipeline would be built in the United States from Sumas to Cherry Point, crossing 33 miles. The 85-mile pipeline would enter the water at Cherry Point and emerge on Vancouver Island to fuel two power plants.

The proposal is a joint venture between B.C. Hydro and Williams pipeline company, which is based in Texas.

After agreeing with the conclusions of the final environmental review of the project, FERC officials agreed that the pipeline would have limited environmental impacts on the land and waters in Whatcom County.

FERC did list 34 conditions for the project, some of which the company has already agreed to. One of the conditions requires the Georgia Strait project to create an environmental complaint resolution procedure for landowners affected by the pipeline to complain about problems during the construction process. All landowners must be informed about how to make a complaint.

Landowners and others, including the Whatcom County Council, have criticized the project because it would not benefit the United States, or specifically Whatcom County. Others have criticized the pipeline's potential effect on marine life, such as the dwindling herring stock at Cherry Point and the highly prized Dungeness crab industry.

Pipeline officials said the pipeline could eventually bring natural gas to industry at Cherry Point, although the company would need further government approval to do so.

'Railroaded'

Darrel Barnes, whose land north of Custer would be used in the project, said he was disappointed in the decision, but it was expected.

"I believe that people in Whatcom County got railroaded into this deal," Barnes said.

Barnes said alternative routes for the pipeline and alternative energy solutions for Vancouver Island were never fully explored.

In its decision, FERC said the other alternatives would require the pipeline to go through areas in Canada more environmentally sensitive than in Whatcom County. The U.S. route wouldn't cross major rivers, avoids populated areas and is on flat, agricultural land, FERC members wrote.

More than half of the landowners along the U.S. pipeline route have signed agreements for easements across their property, said Bev Chipman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. portion of Georgia Strait.

The company will now - with FERC approval in hand - return to unsigned landowners and continue to negotiate. If talks fail, the company will exercise eminent domain over the properties, which requires a hearing before a judge, Chipman said. If the judge rules in favor of the company, the judge will determine the price paid to the landowners for the easement.

Barnes has not signed with the company, and says he will continue to fight letting the company take a swathe of his land that crosses the south fork of Dakota Creek - property that has been in his family for 80 years.

"I feel strongly that I'd like to fight them tooth and nail," Barnes said. "But they're holding the long straw."

Canadian approval pending

Canada's National Energy Board still must approve the project. Delays in the board's decision have caused the total price of the project to increase from $153 million to $200 million, company officials said. The expected construction of the project has also been delayed from 2002 to 2004.

Construction on the U.S. portion would not begin until Canadian approval is given, Chipman said.

"To explain the delays, just consider today FERC has approved the pipeline and we haven't even had a public hearing on the project in Canada," said Ted Olynyk, a spokesman for the Canadian portion of the Georgia Strait project.

The National Energy Board process will be a quasi-judicial hearing where interested parties can cross-examine witnesses and put evidence before a three-member panel.

The list of landowners, community associations and fishing industry officials involved in the Canadian process is long. The project is also being opposed by environmental organizations that say the power plants fueled by the pipeline will double greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia and say other energy alternatives should be considered, said Tim Howard, staff attorney for the Sierra Legal Defense Fund in Vancouver, B.C.

But proponents, including B.C. Hydro, said the project is needed to supply the needs of the growing population on Vancouver Island, where most homes are heated with electricity.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has continued to raise questions about the environmental review of the U.S. portion of the project, even after the final document was released.

In a letter sent in August, EPA officials wrote that FERC should have looked more closely at alternative routes that would have kept the pipeline totally in British Columbia. EPA officials also said the 10 percent chance that an earthquake could cause a rupture of the pipeline in the next 50 years was extraordinarily high.

"A 10 percent potential failure rate is not an acceptable level of risk in the proposed (marine) environments," EPA officials wrote.

The EPA concerns were noted, but did not result in any changes to FERC's final decision.

Chipman said the company will now begin the process of receiving the state environmental permits for stream crossings as well permits for county road right-of-way.

Reach Ericka Pizzillo at ericka.pizzillo@bellinghamherald.com or call 715-2266.

<< story index | top

	home news classifieds entertainment real estate cars jobs personals herald services