Opinion ID: 165264
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonable route and system alternatives

Text: 33 FSW next argues FERC completely failed to consider alternative Canadian routes for the natural gas, and it failed to distinguish between alternatives that might have environmental impacts in Canada but not the United States. FSW asserts that other agencies, namely the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE), shared FSW's concern that FERC's discussion of alternatives was inadequate. 34 The draft EIS (DEIS) identified three all-Canadian routes, two of which involved following parts of the Centra pipeline, while the third involved following an existing BC Gas Inc. pipeline for part of the route. The DEIS recommended no further consideration of these three routes because two of them presented engineering difficulties and more significant environmental impacts than the proposed GSX route. 5 The third alternative, the Sumas-Tilbury-Harmac route, was environmentally acceptable but involved severe engineering problems because it crossed through terrain that was particularly vulnerable to seismic events, even moderate ones. 35 Following the issuance of the DEIS, GSX-Canada commissioned a study to determine the feasibility of expanding the existing Canadian Centra and BC Gas systems to meet the objectives of the GSX project. These were considered alternative systems, rather than alternative routes, because they involved expanding existing pipeline systems, although there was some overlap with parts of the three all-Canadian routes which the DEIS had examined and recommended be removed from consideration. 6 36 The FEIS describes the five pipeline system alternatives the Commission considered: the existing Centra, BC Gas Inc. (BC Gas), ARCO, and Cascade systems as well as the previously planned Orca Natural Gas Pipeline (Orca) project. FEIS at 4-4, R. Vol. III. It concluded that: (1) expansion of the Centra system, which already was the sole provider of natural gas to Vancouver Island, was not a viable alternative because it involved significant environmental and engineering drawbacks including the construction of large sections of looped pipeline through forested and mountainous terrain. FEIS at 4-5, R. Vol. III; 7 (2) the BC Gas system alternative was not viable because, although environmental concerns were a trade off compared to the GSX system, the geotechnical hazards associated with the BC Gas alternative were more significant; (3) the ARCO system alternative was not viable because to provide the volumes of natural gas proposed by GSX-US this system would require expansion and construction of new facilities similar to or greater than those proposed for the GSX project. Id. at 4-9; (4) the Cascade system alternative was not viable because a modification or expansion to accommodate the volumes proposed by GSX-US would not be feasible. Id.; and (5) the Orca system alternative was not feasible because it would be over 200 miles long, compared to the 84 miles of the GSX project, would have greater onshore and offshore impacts and had recently been put on hold due to a lack of firm commitment from potential major customers. Id. at 4-10. Having concluded that these system alternatives, involving expansions of varying degrees of existing pipelines, were not viable alternatives, but were preferable environmentally to a completely new route alternative through Canada, the FEIS concluded that none of the Canadian alternatives was feasible. 37 The FEIS then examined one route alternative which passes through the United States, the Stanwood to Victoria route alternative. The FEIS concluded that, while the alternative did have some environmental advantages, those were offset by disadvantages. Id. at 4-11. It therefore recommended no further consideration of the route. The FEIS also rejected the no action alternative, because the need for the project would not be fulfilled. 38 FSW argues that FERC ignored an important distinction between the GSX project and the system alternatives — that the GSX project will have impacts upon United States property while the Canadian system alternatives will not. FERC's discussion of the various alternatives explained why they were not reasonable viable alternatives. The fact that it selected a route with more impacts in the United States, rather than Canada, does not undermine the reasonableness of that discussion. 39 FSW also argues that FERC ignored concerns expressed by two other agencies — the EPA and the WDOE. The EPA submitted comments on the DEIS expressing its concern that the 40 evaluation of alternatives in the draft EIS appears to have been conducted more from the perspective of developing the rational for eliminating alternatives than from the direction of the implementing regulations for [NEPA] to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and to devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail ... so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits. 41 EPA Comments on the GSX DEIS, R. Vol. III. In response to this, FERC expanded its discussion of several of the alternatives. The EPA remained concerned about the discussion of alternatives: 42 While the discussion of alternatives has been expanded in the final EIS, we remain concerned that the approach used to develop the EIS has inappropriately eliminated reasonable alternatives, in both the United States (US) and Canada, that could meet the stated purpose and need for the project. We do not believe that the EIS has provided sufficient or compelling reasons for the elimination of alternatives presented in Chapter 4. 43 8/22/02 Letter from EPA to FERC, R. Vol. IV. 44 [NEPA] requires agencies preparing environmental impact statements to consider and respond to the comments of other agencies, not to agree with them. Custer County Action Ass'n v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024, 1038 (10th Cir.2001). On the other hand, a reviewing court `may properly be skeptical as to whether an EIS's conclusions have a substantial basis in fact if the responsible agency has apparently ignored the conflicting views of other agencies having pertinent expertise.' Mineta, 302 F.3d at 1123. 45 FERC noted in its Certificate Order granting GSX its CPCNs that the EPA does not challenge the need for the proposed pipeline, but prefers that this need be met by expanding an existing system. Georgia Strait Crossing Pipeline LP, 100 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,280, at 62,198. FERC clearly considered and responded to EPA's comments on the DEIS and to its comments on the FEIS. As we have stated many times, NEPA does not require any particular substantive result, just adherence to the process by which agencies take their requisite hard look. 46 FERC is obligated to articulate `a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.' Friends of Marolt Park v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 382 F.3d 1088, 1096 (10th Cir.2004) (quoting Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 105, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983)). Given our deferential standard of review, we conclude that the FEIS adequately considered alternatives and was not arbitrary or capricious in its selection of the GSX project.