Title: Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Northwest Natural

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

FILED: November 6, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of the Application for
a Site Certificate for Northwest Natural Gas
Company's South Mist Pipeline Extension,
FRIENDS OF PARRETT MOUNTAIN,
LARRY BRIGGS, LEANN BENNETT,
and GEORGE BURNS,
	Petitioners,
	v.
NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS COMPANY,
	Respondent.
(SC S50428 (Control))

WASHINGTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU,
CLACKAMAS COUNTY FARM BUREAU,
MARION COUNTY FARM BUREAU,
DAVID VANASCHE, PHILIP LAPP,
STACEY RUMGAY BUTTON,
LKS CORPORATION,
dba WIL-CHRIS ACRES,
DOUG FEMRITE,
FEMRITE NURSERY COMPANY,
STEPHEN G. BAKER, and CLIVE COOK,
	Petitioners,
	v.
ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCIL,
	Respondent.
(SC S50434)

	On judicial review from an order of the Oregon Energy
Facility Siting Council dated March 13, 2003.*
	Argued and submitted July 22, 2003.
	James S. Smith, of Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Portland,
argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners Friends of
Parrett Mountain, Larry Briggs, Leann Bennett, and George Burns.
	Christine M. Cook, Portland, argued the cause for
petitioners Washington County Farm Bureau, Clackamas County Farm
Bureau, Marion County Farm Bureau, David Vanasche, Phillip Lapp,
Stacey Rumgay Button, LKS Corporation, Doug Femrite, Femrite
Nursery Company, Stephen G. Baker, and Clive Cook.  With her on
the brief was F. Blair Batson, Portland.
	James N. Westwood, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, argued the
cause for respondent Northwest Natural Gas Company.  With him on
the brief were Margaret D. Kirkpatrick and Ellen Hawes Grover,
Portland.
	Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
argued the case for respondent Energy Facility Siting Council. 
With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and
Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs,
De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.**
	DE MUNIZ, J.
	The order of the Energy Facility Siting Council is affirmed.
	*Dr. Roslyn Elms-Sutherland, Chair.
	**Kistler, J., did not participate in the consideration or
decision of this case.
		DE MUNIZ, J.
	In these consolidated proceedings for judicial review,
petitioners challenge a final order of the Energy Facility Siting
Council (council) that permits Northwest Natural Gas Company
(Northwest Natural) to construct an approximately 62-mile long
natural gas pipeline sited primarily within Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU) zones in Washington, Marion, and Clackamas counties.  This
court reviews final orders of the council for errors of law,
abuses of agency discretion, and the presence of substantial
evidence in the record to support the agency's findings of fact. 
ORS 469.403(6); ORS 183.482(8)(a).  In the cases before us, the
parties raise issues that require review for legal error and
substantial evidence only.  For the reasons that follow, we
affirm the council's order.
FACTS, PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND,
AND STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

At the heart of these contested cases is the council's
decision to issue a site certificate for a new, 24-inch,
underground natural gas pipeline that will link Northwest
Natural's Bacona Station in Washington County with its Molalla
Gate Station in Clackamas County. (1)  A site certificate not only
authorizes an applicant to construct and operate a facility like
the pipeline at issue here, (2) it also binds state, county, and
city governments in accordance with the council's determination
and requires state agencies and local governments to issue any
permits specified in the site certificate without further
proceedings.  ORS 469.401.  We begin our discussion of these
cases by first providing an overview of the procedures involved
in the council's determinations generally, followed by a
procedural history of these cases in particular. 
	ORS 469.470(1) places the responsibility for studying
each aspect of site selection with the council:
		"The Energy Facility Siting Council shall:
		"(1) Conduct and prepare, independently or in
cooperation with others, studies, investigations,
research and programs relating to all aspects of site
selection."
(Emphasis added.)  To aid the council in performing that
function, ORS 469.040(1)(b) requires the administrator of the
Oregon Office of Energy (OOE) to supervise and facilitate work
and research on siting applications at the council's direction.  
	Because of the council's central role in siting
determinations, applicants begin the process by submitting a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to the council, outlining the proposed
site and the characteristics of the proposed facility.  ORS
469.330(1).  The council, in turn, distributes public notice of
the applicant's intent, describing the proposed facility and its
site in sufficient detail to inform the public of the facility's
use and its location.  ORS 469.330(2).  After reviewing the NOI,
as well as any comments generated by its public distribution, the
OOE may hold a preapplication conference with those state
agencies and local governments that would have a regulatory or
advisory responsibility regarding the proposed facility.  ORS
469.330(3).  Following that conference, the OOE issues a project
order that establishes the applicable statutes, administrative
rules, council standards, local ordinances, application
requirements, and study requirements governing the application
process.  Id.  A project order is not a final order, and either
the council or the OOE may amend it at any time.  ORS 469.330(4). 
	When an applicant has completed the project order's
requirements, the applicant must submit its application to the
council.  ORS 469.350(1).  The applicant's NOI and application
then are distributed to various state agencies, as well as any
city or county affected by the application, for comments and
recommendations.  ORS 469.350(2).  It is the OOE's responsibility
to determine whether the application is complete and, when it
does so, to notify both the applicant and the public.  ORS
469.350(4). 
	The OOE reviews the completed application, along with
the comments and recommendations submitted by state agencies and
local governments.  Following that review, the OOE prepares a
draft proposed order.  ORS 469.370(1).  After the OOE issues its
draft, the council must hold one or more public hearings on the
application in areas that the proposed facility will affect and
elsewhere, when the council considers it necessary.  ORS
469.370(2).  The OOE reviews any testimony taken at those
hearings and then issues a proposed order recommending approval
or rejection of the application.  ORS 469.370(4).  The OOE also
must issue a public notice concerning the proposed order; the
notice must include notice of a contested case hearing, along
with deadlines for requesting party status in that proceeding and
a date for the prehearing conference.  Id.     
	After the council receives the OOE's proposed order
regarding the application, the council must hold a contested case
hearing in accordance with the provisions of ORS 183.310 to
183.550.  ORS 469.370(5).  At the conclusion of the contested
case, the council issues its final order either approving or
rejecting the application.  ORS 469.370(7).
In 1999, Northwest Natural introduced its pipeline
proposal by first submitting its NOI to the council.  Northwest
Natural then distributed the NOI to the appropriate state
agencies, the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde and Siletz,
local governing bodies, and individual property owners in areas
likely to be affected by the pipeline's construction.
In its NOI, Northwest Natural defined an area
encompassing roughly 500 square miles for the study of
prospective pipeline sites. (3)  It then laid out four possible
corridors within that area as starting points for analysis and
public comment.  The OOE subsequently directed Northwest Natural
to develop and study three additional alternatives:  (1) a route
that followed the area's major highways -- US 26, US 17, and
Interstate 5; (4) (2) a route that considered only the factors
listed in ORS 215.275(2); (5) and (3) a route that minimized
incursions onto EFU-zoned lands.  When those studies were
completed, Northwest Natural began formulating preferred and
alternative pipeline sites for review, using public comments
received in response to its NOI and data derived from its
research.
Under ORS 469.310, "siting, construction and operation
of energy facilities shall be accomplished in a manner consistent
with protection of the public health and safety and in compliance
with the energy policy and air, water, solid waste, land use and
other environmental protection policies of this state."  The
different sets of requirements implementing that statute are
extensive. (6)  This case involves two sets of requirements in
particular.  The first set of requirements encompasses the
statutory criteria that an applicant must meet to locate energy
facilities on EFU lands.  ORS 215.275 requires an applicant, as a
threshold matter, to demonstrate that it has considered
reasonable alternatives to placing its facility within an EFU
zone.  The statute then requires the applicant to show that it
nevertheless must site its facilities in an EFU zone due to one
or more statutory factors:
		"(1) A utility facility established under ORS
215.213(1)(d) or 215.283(1)(d) is necessary for public
service if the facility must be sited in an exclusive
farm use zone in order to provide the service.
		"(2) To demonstrate that a utility facility is
necessary, an applicant for approval under ORS
215.213(1)(d) or 215.283(1)(d) must show that
reasonable alternatives have been considered and that
the facility must be sited in an exclusive farm use
zone due to one or more of the following factors:
		"(a) Technical and engineering feasibility;
		"(b) The proposed facility is locationally
dependent.  A utility facility is locationally
dependent if it must cross land in one or more areas
zoned for exclusive farm use in order to achieve a
reasonably direct route or to meet unique geographical
needs that cannot be satisfied on other lands;
		"(c) Lack of available urban and nonresource
lands;
		"(d) Availability of existing rights of way;
		"(e) Public health and safety; and
		"(f) Other requirements of state or federal
agencies.
		"(3) Costs associated with any of the factors
listed in subsection (2) of this section may be
considered, but cost alone may not be the only
consideration in determining that a utility facility is
necessary for public service.  Land costs shall not be
included when considering alternative locations for
substantially similar utility facilities.  The Land
Conservation and Development Commission shall determine
by rule how land costs may be considered when
evaluating the siting of utility facilities that are
not substantially similar.
		"(4) The owner of a utility facility approved
under ORS 215.213(1)(d) or 215.283(1)(d) shall be
responsible for restoring, as nearly as possible, to
its former condition any agricultural land and
associated improvements that are damaged or otherwise
disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or
reconstruction of the facility.  Nothing in this
section shall prevent the owner of the utility facility
from requiring a bond or other security from a
contractor or otherwise imposing on a contractor the
responsibility for restoration.
		"(5) The governing body of the county or its
designee shall impose clear and objective conditions on
an application for utility facility siting under ORS
215.213(1)(d) or 215.283(1)(d) to mitigate and minimize
the impacts of the proposed facility, if any, on
surrounding lands devoted to farm use in order to
prevent a significant change in accepted farm practices
or a significant increase in the cost of farm practices
on the surrounding farmlands.
		"(6) The provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of
this section do not apply to interstate natural gas
pipelines and associated facilities authorized by and
subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission."
ORS 215.275.
		The second set of requirements is found in the
structural standards imposed by OAR 345-022-0020(1).  Under that
rule, an applicant seeking site certification must demonstrate
that:	
		"(a) The applicant, through appropriate
site-specific study, has adequately characterized the
site as to seismic zone and expected ground motion and
ground failure, taking into account amplification,
during the maximum credible and maximum probable
seismic events; and
		"(b) The applicant can design, engineer, and
construct the facility to avoid dangers to human safety
presented by seismic hazards affecting the site that
are expected to result from all maximum probable
seismic events.  As used in this rule 'seismic hazard'
includes ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction,
lateral spreading, tsunami inundation, fault
displacement, and subsidence;
		"(c) The applicant, through appropriate
site-specific study, has adequately characterized the
potential geological and soils hazards of the site and
its vicinity that could, in the absence of a seismic
event, adversely affect, or be aggravated by, the
construction and operation of the proposed facility;
and
		"(d) The applicant can design, engineer and
construct the facility to avoid dangers to human safety
presented by the hazards identified in subsection (c)."
		In March 2001, Northwest Natural presented its siting
plan to the OOE in an eight-volume site certificate application. 
At the OOE's direction, Northwest Natural subsequently submitted
several supplements to complete the application, among them
detailed plans to mitigate possible environmental and
agricultural impacts.  In September 2002, the OOE issued a
proposed order tentatively approving the pipeline's site
certificate.  At the same time, the OOE also issued a contested
case proceeding notice to allow interested parties to challenge
the proposed order.  Ultimately, the council granted party status
to 56 entities and individuals in the administrative proceedings
that followed.  From December 13, 2002 through January 31, 2003,
the parties presented their respective cases.  The council then
issued a recommended order in February 2003, and the parties
filed exceptions and responses.  In March 2003, the council
issued a final order granting a site certificate for construction
of the pipeline.
The certificate authorizes Northwest Natural to construct its pipeline within an approximately 62-mile long, 200-foot wide corridor designed around 10 significant "constraint
points." (7)  Inside that corridor, Northwest Natural will build the
pipeline within an 80-foot wide, temporary construction easement. 
Upon completion of the project, the width of the easement will be
reduced to 40 feet and become permanent.  Approximately 56 miles
of the pipeline will pass through EFU zones; in those zones, 35
miles of the pipeline will be buried within, or adjacent to,
existing road or highway rights of way.  In most locations, the
pipeline will be buried at least five feet below ground level,
except at road crossings, where the pipeline's depth will be four
feet.    
		Two groups of petitioners seek review of the council's
siting decision in this case.  The first -- Friends of Parrett
Mountain et al. (Parrett Mountain petitioners) -- is a community
organization comprised of people from the Parrett Mountain and
Sherwood areas who live or work in the vicinity of the proposed
pipeline.  The second -- Washington County Farm Bureau et al.
(Farm Bureau petitioners)-- is made up of the Washington County
Farm Bureau, its counterparts in Marion and Clackamas counties,
and individual farm owners who will be affected by the pipeline's
construction.  We address the arguments of each group separately.

PARRETT MOUNTAIN PETITIONERS
	
		In the proceedings below, the Sherwood fault -- a
geological formation underlying the pipeline's proposed route in
the Parrett Mountain area -- was of particular concern for
Parrett Mountain petitioners, because of the possible earthquake
activity often associated with faults.  The council found,
however, that Northwest Natural's application met the structural
standards imposed by OAR 345-022-0020(1) and demonstrated that
Northwest Natural could design, engineer, and construct the
pipeline to avoid seismic and soil-related dangers to human
safety.  On review, Parrett Mountain petitioners argue that
substantial evidence in the record does not support the council's
finding.
	  	 To understand petitioners' argument fully, some explanation regarding the geological assessment of the Parrett
Mountain/Sherwood area is needed.  OAR 345-021-0010(1)(h)
required Northwest Natural to submit, with its application,
"information from reasonably available sources regarding the
geological and soil stability of the site and vicinity."  To
comply with that requirement, Northwest Natural hired an
independent engineering firm to compile a geological assessment
of the proposed pipeline corridor.  
		In examining the Parrett Mountain portion of the
corridor, the firm conducted, among other things, an aerial study
of the region's topography, searching for potential landslide
hazards with digital sonar technology and aerial photography. 
Field investigations of areas identified as potential trouble
spots followed the aerial study.  The engineering firm also
relied, in part, on a 1995 study that had examined the Sherwood
fault for earthquake potential and found no evidence that the
fault had moved in the last 1.6 to 2 million years.  In addition,
the firm used its own aerial photographs to determine that soil
deposits covering the surface projection of the fault from past
geologic ages had remained undisturbed for roughly ten thousand
years.  As a result of its studies, the engineering firm
concluded that the fault should not be considered potentially
active and that the pipeline was unlikely to be threatened by
landslides in the area. 
		Parrett Mountain petitioners, however, also engaged an
independent expert -- a certified geologist -- to review
geotechnical data from the area and physically examine the
proposed pipeline site.  Upon completing his research, the
geologist testified that Northwest Natural had failed to (1) use
or refer to the best and most detailed study of the local
geology; (2) identify two significant landslides in the middle of
the corridor that should be of concern to the pipeline designers;
and (3) address the considerable evidence of "soil creep" in the
area. (8)  
		In response, a representative of Northwest Natural's
engineering firm testified that his firm had not used the study
referred to by the Parrett Mountain geologist -- Groundwater
Conditions of Basalt Aquifers, Parrett Mountain, Northern
Willamette Valley -- because of its focus on groundwater
resources rather than fault hazards.  The engineering firm
nevertheless reviewed the groundwater study, and its
representative later presented evidence documenting multiple
discrepancies in the study's geological mapping.  As a result,
the engineering firm's representative concluded that the study's
geological map and associated cross sections did not meet
generally accepted standards of quality for published maps,
calling the map's reliability into question.  The engineering
firm's representative also noted that, in any event, the ground
water study presented nothing to indicate that the Sherwood
fault, in fact, was active.  
		Northwest Natural's engineering firm also returned to
the Parrett Mountain area to investigate the landslide sites and
soil creep reported by the Parrett Mountain geologist.  The
engineering firm found no evidence of landslide activity at the
locations that the Parrett Mountain expert had noted.  The firm
also concluded that slope irregularities in the area were
generally not the product of soil creep, but rather traces of old
logging activities -- the remains of access roads, dragline
scars, and removed or rotted stumps.  Although the firm did
discover some instances of soil creep, the firm found that the
affected areas were shallow and unlikely to disturb the pipeline
because of the depth at which it would be buried. 
		On review, Parrett Mountain petitioners argue that, to
the extent that their expert's evidence conflicts with evidence
presented by Northwest Natural's experts, unfilled gaps exist in
the demonstration of Northwest Natural's ability to meet the
structural standards imposed by OAR 345-022-0020(1).  Because of
those gaps, they argue, this court should conclude that the
council's final order is not supported by substantial evidence in
the record.  We disagree.   
		Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of
fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a
reasonable person to make that finding.  ORS 183.482(8)(c).  In
making that determination, the probative weight to be accorded
the testimony of expert witnesses is for the trier of fact to
apportion.  Cf. State v. Clark, 286 Or 33, 40-41, 593 P2d 123
(1979) (stating principle in nonadministrative law context). 
		Here, in arguing that the parties' clash of experts
effectively has deprived the record of substantial evidence,
Parrett Mountain petitioners implicitly ask this court to either
weigh the evidence in the record, reexamine the credibility of
the experts, or both.  That is not our function in this case. 
Although the testimony of the respective experts is in conflict,
a simple conflict in evidence is not a sufficient basis for this
court to conclude that the council's findings regarding OAR 345-022-0020(1) are unsupported by substantial evidence.  
		In any event, even if we were to assume, without
deciding, that the Parrett Mountain expert indeed did create an
"evidentiary gap" in the record when he testified before the
council, we could not say the same after Northwest Natural's
expert responded.  Neither Northwest Natural's engineering firm
nor the council dismissed out of hand the concerns contained in
the Parrett Mountain expert's testimony -- the unused groundwater
study, the undiscovered landslide sites, and soil creep in the
area.  The record shows that Northwest Natural's experts reviewed
the groundwater study, physically reexamined the area proposed
for locating the pipeline, and subsequently presented evidence
garnered from those endeavors to rebut the geologist's testimony. 
Based on that evidence and the engineering firm's initial studies
of the area, the council ultimately determined that the firm's
presentation regarding the safety of the pipeline's Parrett
Mountain location was entitled to greater weight than the
countervailing evidence presented by petitioners' geologist. 
That determination was within the purview of the council, and the
evidence from which it was drawn would permit a reasonable person
to make the same findings as those contained in the council's
order.  We therefore conclude that there was substantial evidence
in the record that Northwest Natural's site certificate
application met the structural standards imposed by OAR 345-022-0020(1). 
FARM BUREAU PETITIONERS

		The issues that Farm Bureau petitioners raise on review
are the result of the pipeline's proposed placement in areas
zoned for exclusive farm use.  In its final order, the council
found that Northwest Natural -- in keeping with ORS 215.275 --
had considered reasonable alternatives to EFU locations in
formulating the pipeline's route.  The council then found that
siting the pipeline within EFU zones nevertheless was necessary
in light of the statutory factors set out in ORS 215.275(2). 
		As set out above, ___ Or ___ (slip op at 7-8), before
an applicant can site an energy facility in an EFU zone, ORS
215.275(2) requires the applicant to establish that it must site
the facility in that zone to provide service.  To do so, that
statute requires an applicant to show that as part of its
planning, it considered reasonable alternatives to the use of EFU
lands and that one or more statutory factors nevertheless
required it to locate the facility in an EFU zone. See Friends of
Parrett Mountain, ___ Or at ___ n 5 (slip op at 5 n 5).
		On review, Farm Bureau petitioners' first assignment of
error is that the council misconstrued ORS 215.275(2) in finding
that Northwest Natural had considered "reasonable alternatives"
before concluding that it was necessary to locate the pipeline
within EFU zones.  Specifically, Farm Bureau petitioners argue
that, as a matter of law, the phrase "reasonable alternatives"
means alternatives that are "facially feasible" or, as they state
in their brief, "alternatives that have some likelihood of
success either initially or with modest refinement."  They
contend that Northwest Natural failed to meet that standard. 
This court interprets statutory terms under the now
familiar analytical framework set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor
and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12, 859 P2d 1143 (1993). 
Pursuant to that methodology, we first examine the text and
context of the statute, giving words of common usage "their
plain, natural and ordinary meaning."  Id. at 611.  If the
legislature's intent is clear from the text and context of the
statute, then further analysis is unnecessary.  Id.
		No statutory definition exists to explain what makes an
alternative "reasonable" under ORS 215.275(2).  There is,
however, a well-understood legal meaning attributed to that term: "Fair, proper, just, moderate, suitable under the circumstances. 
* * * Not immoderate or excessive, being synonymous with
rational, honest, equitable, fair, suitable, moderate,
tolerable."  Black's Law Dictionary 1265 (6th ed 1990).  That
definition of "reasonable" contrasts considerably with the
meaning that Farm Bureau petitioners would have us insert in its
place, i.e., to "have some likelihood of success either initially
or with modest refinement."  By its choice of words, the
legislature used a broad brush to describe the alternatives that
an applicant must consider under ORS 215.275(2).  The
qualification that Farm Bureau petitioners propose would narrow
that broad standard significantly, effectively replacing it with
one by which applicants must determine that a particular EFU
alternative probably is capable of realization before they can
consider it as an alternative under the statute.  We reject that
construction of the statute.  See ORS 174.010 (in construing
statutes, court cannot omit what has been inserted or insert what
has been omitted). 
	 	Farm Bureau petitioners next argue that, in developing the initial pipeline corridor, the council erred in failing to
require Northwest Natural to evaluate siting alternatives on a
property-by-property basis.  Relying on a Land Use Board of
Appeals' (LUBA) decision City of Albany v. Linn County, 40 Or
LUBA 38 (2001), they contend that the size and complexity of the
proposed pipeline requires a property-by-property analysis under
ORS 215.275(2) for each discrete property segment.  That
position, however, is not well supported, for several reasons.
		First, nothing in ORS 215.275(2) suggests that the
legislature intended to impose the kind of property-by-property
analysis Farm Bureau petitioners posit here.  The text of that
statute focuses on EFU zones only as whole units, not as
collections of discrete, subdivided properties:
		"(2) To demonstrate that a utility facility is
necessary, an applicant for approval under ORS
215.213(1)(d) or 215.283(1)(d) must show that
reasonable alternatives have been considered and that
the facility must be sited in an exclusive farm use
zone due[.]"
(Emphasis added.)
		Second, assuming arguendo that LUBA's opinion in City
of Albany is indeed instructive in the context of this judicial
review proceeding, Farm Bureau petitioners nevertheless have
misconstrued its application here.  City of Albany involved
siting a municipal waterworks that encompassed separate, discrete
components, among them, a water treatment facility, a storage
reservoir, a waste backwash facility, and finished water
pipelines.  The opinion in that case noted, as a general matter,
that the need to locate one component of such a facility in an
EFU zone would not necessarily justify siting companion
components in the same zone.  40 Or LUBA at 48.  The opinion then
went on to observe that the justification for siting the
waterworks' pipelines on farm or forest land would not, by
extension, also justify placing the facility's separate water
treatment and storage reservoir components in similar areas.  Id.
at 50.  
		The kind of multiple-component utility that figured so
prominently in City of Albany, however, is not present in this
case.  Here, one component comprises the facility at issue:  the
proposed pipeline.  Unlike the waterworks in City of Albany, the
pipeline contains no obvious dividing points marked by separate
physical structures and therefore affords no occasion to consider
whether distinct physical structures might require distinct
justifications under ORS 215.275(2).  As a result, we see no
application for the City of Albany rationale in this case.  The
council did not err in refusing to require a property-by-property
analysis of the pipeline under ORS 215.275(2).     
		In their second and third assignments of error, Farm
Bureau petitioners focus on the use of road and highway rights-of-way in the EFU zones as alternatives to routing the pipeline
through actively farmed land.  Farm Bureau petitioners assert in
their second assignment of error that the council erred when it
allowed Northwest Natural to site the pipeline on farmland,
rather than in public road and highway rights-of-way within the
EFU zones.  Specifically, they argue that the council
misconstrued ORS 215.275(2) and made findings that were not
supported by substantial evidence in determining that safety and
other concerns prevented Northwest Natural from locating the
pipeline within those rights-of-way.  In their third assignment
of error, Farm Bureau petitioners assert that the council erred
when it determined that road or highway rights of way in EFU
zones do not require consideration as siting alternatives under
ORS 215.275(2).  Farm Bureau petitioners note that, pursuant to
ORS 215.283(1)(L), an applicant may site energy facilities either
overhead or in the subsurface of public roads in EFU zones
without resorting to the analysis required by ORS 215.275(2). 
Because that analysis is unnecessary when siting energy
facilities on non-EFU zoned land, Farm Bureau petitioners argue
that road and highway rights of way in EFU zones, in effect, are
like non-EFU zoned lands for the purposes of ORS 215.275(2) and
should be considered accordingly.  Because our analysis of the
latter argument effectively disposes of both assignments of
error, we address it first. 
		ORS 215.203(1) allows areas within counties to be set
aside as zones for exclusive farm use:    
		"Zoning ordinances may be adopted to zone
designated areas of land within the county as exclusive
farm use zones.  Land within such zones shall be used
exclusively for farm use except as otherwise provided
in ORS 215.213, 215.283 or 215.284.  Farm use zones
shall be established only when such zoning is
consistent with the comprehensive plan."
(Emphasis added.)  At the same time, however, the part of the
statute highlighted above recognizes another assortment of uses
that can take place in EFU zones:  specific nonfarm uses
"otherwise provided" in ORS 215.213, 215.283, or 215.284. 
Expressly included within that group is the construction and
modification of public roads and highways within EFU zones.  See,
e.g., ORS 215.283(1)(L) (permitting roadway modifications that do
not involve construction of additional travel lanes, removal or
displacement of buildings, or creation of new land parcels); ORS
215.283(2)(q)(r) (permitting, with prior approval, construction
of passing or travel lanes that require acquisition of right-of-way and road modifications that require building displacement);
ORS 215.283(3) (permitting, with prior approval, construction of
roads and highways not allowed under subsections (1) and (2) of
statute).   
		As a result, rather than categorically distinguishing
road-related modifications and construction from the EFU zones in
which they occur, ORS 215.203 anticipates inclusion of roads and
highways as integral parts of EFU zones, even though they are
nonfarm uses.  In short, under ORS 215.203, it is incorrect to
view road and highway rights-of-way within EFU zones as non-EFU
anomalies that each require separate analysis under ORS
215.275(2).  We do not view such rights-of-way as alternatives to 
EFU zones when, in fact, they are part of such zones.  Farm
Bureau petitioners' contrary position in their third assignment
of error therefore is not well taken.  We conclude that the
council did not misapply ORS 215.275(2) with regard to the road
and highway rights-of-way at issue here. 
		That conclusion also disposes of Farm Bureau
petitioners' second assignment of error.  There, they argue that,
under the alternatives analysis that ORS 215.275(2) requires, the
council incorrectly rejected some road rights-of-way within EFU
zones as pipeline sites based on safety concerns and other
factors.  Although the context of that argument differs slightly 
from that presented in Farm Bureau petitioners' third assignment
of error, it is nevertheless premised on the same mistaken notion
that we have identified above, i.e., that the statutes treat road
and highway rights-of-way in EFU zones in the same manner as non-EFU zoned lands.  As we have concluded, they do not.    
		In their fourth assignment of error, Farm Bureau
petitioners assert that, in those locations where the council did
approve public road and highway rights-of-way as sites for the
pipeline, the council nevertheless misconstrued ORS 215.283(1)(L)
in doing so.  That statute provides:			
		"(1) The following uses may be established in any
area zoned for exclusive farm use:
		"* * * * *
		"(L) Reconstruction or modification of public
roads and highways, including the placement of utility
facilities overhead and in the subsurface of public
roads and highways along the public right of way, but
not including the addition of travel lanes, where no
removal or displacement of buildings would occur, or no
new land parcels result."
(Emphasis added.)  Relying on the text highlighted above, Farm
Bureau petitioners argued below that locating a pipeline within
the "subsurface" of a public road or highway road right-of-way
necessitated, as a matter of law, placing it directly under the
hard surface of the road.  The council declined to adopt that
reading of the statute, and petitioners now reiterate their
argument on review.
	In construing ORS 215.283(1)(L) under the PGE
methodology, 317 Or at 610-12, we first examine the statute's
text and context.  Id. at 611.  The statute's use of the phrase
"along the public right of way" and the fact that it modifies the
word "overhead" in the statute suggests that the legislature
intended that a utility facility may be placed anywhere "along,"
that is, within the confines of, the right of way.  The context
of that statutory provision, which includes related statutes,
lends substantial support to that interpretation of legislative
intent.
The zoning statutes contained in ORS chapter 215 do not
articulate the defining physical aspects of roads or highways,
much less discuss in any detail their subsurfaces.  However,
statutes expressly devoted to the thoroughfares of this state (9)
frequently define roads and highways as encompassing "the entire
right of way" upon which the road or highway's hard surface has
been built:
		"'Road' means the entire right of way of any
public or private way that provides ingress to or
egress from property by means of vehicles or other
means or that provides travel between places by means
of vehicles.  'Road' includes, but is not limited to:
		"(a) Ways described as streets, highways,
throughways or alleys[.]"
ORS 368.001(6)(a) (emphasis added).
		"'Public road' means the entire right of way of
any road over which the public has the right of use or
any right of way held by the state or a political
subdivision of the state for road purposes that is not
open for public use."
ORS 376.150(1) (emphasis added).
		"'State highway,' 'highway' or 'state highway
system' means the entire width between the boundary
lines of the right of way of every state highway, as
defined by ORS 366.005, and the terms also include the
interstate system and the federal-aid primary system."
ORS 377.710(34) (emphasis added).  For zoning purposes, the
legislature can define roads and highways differently if it
chooses, but it has not done so.  In the absence of any other
definition in the zoning statutes, the statutes noted above
provide important contextual clues from which we discern the
legislatures's intent regarding the roads and highways at issue
here.  We conclude that, for purposes of ORS 215.283(1)(L), the
phrase "public roads and highways" means the entire right-of-way
within which those thoroughfares are constructed, not just the
hard surface upon which traffic travels.  As a result, Northwest
Natural could comply with ORS 215.283(1)(L) by burying a pipeline
alongside a hard road surface, so long as it remained within the
thoroughfare's right-of-way.  Farm Bureau petitioners' contrary
construction of the statute therefore is not well taken, and the
council did not err in so concluding.
		In their final assignment of error, Farm Bureau
petitioners assert that the council misconstrued and, as a
result, failed to satisfy the requirements of ORS 215.275(5). 
ORS 215.275(5) provides:
		"The governing body of the county or its designee
shall impose clear and objective conditions on an
application for utility facility siting under ORS
215.213(1)(d) or 215.283(1)(d) to mitigate and minimize
the impacts of the proposed facility, if any, on
surrounding lands devoted to farm use in order to
prevent a significant change in accepted farm practices
or a significant increase in the cost of farm practices
on the surrounding farmlands."
Farm Bureau petitioners note that, in the administrative rules
that the council promulgated, one definition of "mitigation"
makes avoiding impacts a priority in the hierarchy of actions
that an applicant can take to lessen potentially negative effects
in siting an energy facility.  See OAR 345-001-0010(29). (10) 
Pointing to that rule, Farm Bureau petitioners suggest that the
term "mitigate" in ORS 215.275(5) warrants a similar
construction.  They argue that the statutory term compels the
council to preempt farmland impacts outright by conditioning
compliance with ORS 215.275(5) on avoiding incursions onto
actively farmed land where possible.  As a result, they argue,
the council should have imposed an objective condition requiring
Northwest Natural to locate the pipeline under roadways in EFU
zones wherever possible or, alternatively, denied Northwest
Natural's application.  Farm Bureau petitioners contend that the
council's failure to do so was error. (11)
	In construing ORS 215.275(5), we follow the PGE
methodology, 317 Or at 610-12.  In this instance, because the
terms "minimize" and "mitigate" do not have special statutory
definitions, and do not have any well-understood legal meaning in
this context, we give those terms their plain, natural and
ordinary meanings.  Id.  The dictionary defines, "mitigate" as 
"to cause to become more gentle or less hostile; * * * to make
less severe, violent, cruel, intense, or painful."  Webster's at
1447.  In the context of ORS 215.275(5), that term speaks to
lessening the intensity or severity of a particular impact. 
"Minimize" in turn, means to reduce "to the smallest possible
number, degree, or extent[.]"  Webster's at 1438.  It does not,
however, mean "eliminate."  Thus, the statute assumes that some
impact on EFU land is permissible.  Put differently, the word
connotes reducing, to the extent possible, the frequency with
which an impact occurs.  When we construe the terms "mitigate"
and "minimize" together, they demonstrate that ORS 215.275(5)
requires the general reduction in the intensity and frequency of
an impact, not, as Farm Bureau petitioners suggest, the absolute
avoidance or elimination.  The council did not err in declining
to adopt that construction of those terms in its final order.   
	The order of the Energy Facility Siting Council is
affirmed.



1. 	The stated purpose of the pipeline is twofold.  First,
according to Northwest Natural, it will allow Northwest Natural
to maximize use of its Mist Underground Natural Gas Storage
Facility to store gas during off-peak periods of demand and help
balance a relatively static gas supply with widely fluctuating
seasonal needs.  Second, it will help meet the increasing demands
for natural gas in the growing suburbs west of Portland.  

2. 	Aside from several exceptions not relevant here, ORS
469.300(10)(a)(E) defines natural gas pipelines that are at least
16 inches in diameter and more than five miles long as energy
facilities. 

3. 	That area was bounded roughly by the
Columbia/Washington county line to the north, Molalla to the
south, the Coast Range to the west, and a line approximating the
eastern limits of Hillsboro, Sherwood, Wilsonville, and Canby to
the east.

4. 	That route represented the alternative most often
mentioned in public responses to Northwest Natural's NOI.

5. 	ORS 215.275(2) is set out in full below, ___ Or at ___
(slip op at 7-8).  Briefly paraphrased here for convenience, that
statute allows an applicant to site an energy facility in an EFU
zone if the applicant must use that zone rather than other
alternatives due to one of the following factors:  (1) technical
and engineering feasibility; (2) locational dependency; (3) lack
of available urban and nonresource lands; (4) availability of
existing rights of way; (5) public health and safety; and (6)
other requirements of state or federal agencies.	

6. 	OAR chapter 345, division 22, for example, delineates
many of the substantive standards that an applicant must meet to
receive site certification from the council.  As a threshold
matter, an applicant must, through appropriate studies, first
categorize the site as to seismic zone and expected ground
motion, show that the facility can be designed and built to avoid
those dangers, and identify and avoid adverse nonseismic effects
that construction will have on the site, OAR 345-022-0020.  The
applicant then must demonstrate, generally, that the design,
construction, operation, and retirement of a facility (1) can
avoid adverse soil impacts, OAR 345-22-0022; (2) will comply with
statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC), OAR 345-022-0030; (3) are not
likely to result in significant adverse impacts to protected
areas, OAR 345-022-0040; (4) will allow a site to be restored
adequately to a useful, nonhazardous condition following
permanent cessation of construction or operation of the facility,
OAR 345-022-0050; (5) are consistent with fish and wildlife
habitat mitigation goals and standards, OAR 345-022-0060; (6) are
consistent with conservation and protection programs for
endangered plant and animal species, OAR 345-022-0070; (7) are
not likely to result in significant adverse impacts to important
scenic and aesthetic values identified in applicable land
management plans, OAR 345-022-0080; (8) are not likely to result
in significant adverse impacts to historic, cultural, or
archaeological resources listed on, or likely to be listed on,
the National Register of Historic Places, OAR 345-022-0090; (9)
are not likely to result in significant adverse impacts to
important recreational opportunities, OAR 345-022-0100; (10) are
not likely to result in significant adverse impacts to the
ability of public and private entities to provide sewers and
sewage treatment, water, storm water drainage, solid waste
management, housing, traffic safety, police and fire protection,
health care, and schools, OAR 345-022-0110; and (11) will
minimize and recycle solid waste and wastewater with minimal
adverse impacts on surrounding and adjacent areas, OAR 345-022-0120.  

7. 	In laying out the corridor, Northwest Natural
identified 10 key locations that the proposed facility had to
pass through, or had to avoid, to maintain its viability.  Those
"constraint points" were formulated based on a variety of
factors:  public safety, geotechnical or engineering matters,
other state or federal requirements, specific council
requirements, and the location of favorably aligned roads.  In
each case, Northwest Natural considered alternatives to those
locations, but found either that it could not implement them due
to one of the constraint point factors listed above or that the
proposed alternative simply traded one EFU location for another. 

8. 	"Soil creep" is the gradual movement of soil down a
slope in response to gravity.  When it occurs at a level deep
enough below the surface, soil creep can result in step-like
ridges along hillsides, trees that grow in a curve to counteract
progressive leaning, and severely tilted man-made structures. 

9. 	ORS Title 31, Highways, Roads, Bridges, and Ferries. 

10. 	OAR 345-001-0010 provides, in part:
		"In this chapter, the following definitions
apply unless the context requires otherwise or a
term is specifically defined within a division or
a rule:
		"* * * * *
		"(29) 'Mitigation' means taking one or more
of the following actions listed in order of
priority:
		"(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not
taking a certain action or parts of an action;
		"(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the
degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation;
		"(c) Partially or completely rectifying the
impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the affected environment;
		"(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over
time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action by monitoring and
taking appropriate corrective measures;
		"(e) Partially or completely compensating for
the impact by replacing or providing comparable
substitute resources or environments; or
		"(f) Implementing other measures approved by
the Council."

11. 	Farm Bureau petitioners go on to argue that, because
ORS 215.275(5) requires avoidance of farmland impacts as a
threshold matter, the council still must consider road and
highway rights of way as siting alternatives within EFU zones,
even if the alternatives analysis of ORS 215.275(2) is
inapplicable in such cases.  Our analysis of the primary argument
in this assignment of error, however, disposes of the issue
before us, obviating the need to address Farm Bureau petitioner's
secondary argument at this time.