Accusations fly in latest LNG battle

Carrie Bartoldus March 2, 2009

February 25th Larry Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General with the Natural Resources Section of Oregon’s Department of Justice wrote a letter to Northern Star’s (Bradwood Landing) attorney and to Columbia Riverkeeper’s (CRK) director/attorney. In the letter Knudsen gave an update on the progress of two of the permits that Bradwood Landing had before Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Northern Star’s Bradwood Landing project is applying for permits to site an LNG storage facility on private property in Clatsop County on what was once a saw mill site and is currently zoned for marine industrial, using private money from investors. Columbia Riverkeepers, a regional branch of a private organization which monitors the use of rivers throughout the country, opposes the project mainly because they say that spending money on fossil fuel projects takes away from “green” projects, the majority of which are heavily subsidized by the government, according to

In the bitter conflict between the two adversaries both continue to accuse the other of “duping” the public with “misinformation”. In the latest confrontation between the two, Columbia Riverkeepers appealed land use law decisions made by Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners to Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals as Respondent-Interveners. Their arguments, along with the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission’s and Dunzer’s, were addressed in LUBA’s final decision.

LUBA had three choices of decisions to render when considering the appeal. The state agency could uphold the Board’s decision. They could reverse (overturn) the Board’s decision or they could remand it back to the Board for further clarification (send it back to be fixed).

The Inter-tribal Fish Council lost on all eight points it was contesting, and the Board’s decisions were upheld. Dunzer lost on both points he was contesting and CRK lost on 21 issues, with the Board’s decision’s being upheld on each. Two decisions that CRK contested were remanded back to the BOCC. None of the land use decisions were reversed.

Knudsen clarified that because the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remanded two decisions back to the Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) the permit for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the permit for the Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) would more than likely be denied and recommended that Bradwood Landing formally agree to continue the suspension of permitting activities for the two permits until the remanded decisions were resolved.

The letter went on to update the recipients regarding additional matters that Bradwood Landing had not yet applied for, explaining what needed to be accomplished for the NPDES to be issued for “construction stormwater permits or registration under the 1200 C general permit for the proposed pipeline.”

Upon receiving the letter Columbia Riverkeepers sent out a press release informing media that DEQ had stopped reviewing all permits. Columbia Riverkeeper’s press release stated:

First, Clatsop County Citizens for Common Sense passed a referendum on September 16, 2008 that barred LNG pipelines in protected areas. Second, Columbia Riverkeeper and partners won a challenge at the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) that overturned the county’s approval of Bradwood Landing. Based on these two victories, DEQ has suspended review of all permits for the LNG terminal and pipeline.

Bradwood Landing quickly issued its rebuttal:

A letter sent yesterday by the Oregon Department of Justice on behalf of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality addresses procedural matters relating to processing certain permits for Bradwood Landing, but in no way constitutes a suspension of work … “The permitting process associated with an LNG terminal and pipeline is highly complex,” said Joe Desmond, senior vice president for external affairs for NorthernStar Natural Gas. “It consists of hundreds of local, state and federal permits, many of which are connected to other permits. In addition, there are overlapping and interdependent schedules for review and processing.” The DOJ letter makes clear that the State has not stopped processing all of our permits.

The Columbia Riverkeeper’s point of view is that Northern Star’s Bradwood Landing project has met a critical point in its permitting process. “DEQ’s action of suspending the permits is another major blow to Bradwood Landing,” stated Brett VandenHeuvel, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper. “Bradwood is trying to push through an incredibly unpopular project, but sixty-seven percent of Clatsop voters rejected the pipeline and LUBA overturned the rest. Considering the broad state-wide opposition and Bradwood’s legal problesm, I don’t see this as a viable project.”

Bradwood Landing counters, in its press releases, that the recent development with DEQ is par for the course when dealing with permitting agencies.

The critical point for the public to understand is that these permits are NOT on the project’s critical path, which means there is flexibility within the overall schedule to work through these types of delays until such time that DEQ can issue its final decision. Starting and stopping a clock is standard practice for any agency reviewing an application. We will be meeting with DEQ in the near future to discuss the appropriate next steps.

Columbia Riverkeepers also restated in its press release that they, and assorted interveners, had prevailed in the LUBA appeal. The following parties prevailed in the LUBA appeal: Columbia Riverkeeper, Columbia River Business Alliance, Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition, Jack Marincovich, and Peter Huhtala (represented by Jan Wilson of the Western Environmental Law Center) and the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission (represented by Julie Cater).

As previously stated, Columbia Riverkeepers and its co-interveners asked that the land use decisions made by the Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners be reversed (overturned). In point of fact, Columbia Riverkeepers requests, as well as all those by the rest of the co-interveners, were denied. None of their over 30 arguments convinced LUBA to reverse any of the Board’s decisions. The Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners land use decisions were upheld, with only two issues being remanded back to the Board for further clarification.

Columbia Riverkeepers then accused BWL of “continuously” deceiving the public and agencies in its application for the Bradwood Pipeline.

New evidence shows that NorthernStar Natural Gas Company has a binding commitment to deliver all of the gas imported to its proposed Bradwood Landing LNG terminal to the Palomar Pipeline in Oregon. Therefore, the pipeline that Bradwood Landing has proposed through Cowlitz County (known as the “Bradwood pipeline” and shown on map in green) is unnecessary because all of the gas is committed to travel though the Palomar Pipeline. Bradwood has performed a bait-and-switch, wasting tremendous resources at FERC, federal agencies, the State of Washington, and Cowlitz County, as well affected landowners.

Bradwood countered in its press release that CRK “fundamentally” misunderstands the Bradwood Landing project and the workings of interstate gas pipelines.

The paper’s conclusion is fundamentally flawed – even the title itself was wrong. Since BWL does not own the gas, it cannot commit to where the gas goes. Our customers will make that decision. That is how we’ve previously explained the Precedent Agreement.

As determined by FERC and Clatsop County, Bradwood Landing has “independent utility” and will be constructed regardless of whether or not the Palomar pipeline is constructed. The objective of the Bradwood Landing pipeline is to deliver 1.3 Bcfd of natural gas into the Northwest gas market; the proposed route meets this objective, regardless of whether Palomar is built.

Columbia Riverkeepers went on to state that there is “new” evidence that Bradwood’s intent was to pump all of its gas through Palomar. In doing so, CRK alleged, Bradwood raised serious doubts as to whether the application for the Bradwood pipeline was in bad faith if Bradwood already had an agreement to ship the gas via the Palomar Pipeline. Bradwood’s own Securities and Exchange Commission filings show that Bradwood intended to use Palomar as early as 2006. Bradwood stated: “we have recently submitted a request for service to TransCanada and NW Natural for their open season under which they would construct, own and operate a pipeline that would connect the Bradwood terminal to Williams’ Northwest pipeline at Molalla and TransCanada’s GTN Pipeline near Mollala.

Bradwood Landing responded by stating that the “new” evidence CRK was referring to has been a part of its permitting process for over two years, and went on to show the timeline for its applications.

Northern Star initiated the pre-filing process for the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal and associated pipeline on February 23, 2005, Palomar Pipeline initiated the pre-filing process on August 20, 2007. The Bradwood Landing project was proposed to FERC nearly 2 ½ years prior to the Palomar project. In addition, Bradwood began working with the State of Oregon through its Energy Facility Siting Council in 2004 and received a project order for the Bradwood terminal and pipeline in 2005, again two years before Palomar was proposed to FERC.

The Bradwood Landing project consists of the Bradwood Landing Terminal and Bradwood Landing Pipeline, the Bradwood Landing project has “independent utility.” It would have made no sense, argues BWL, to suggest building a holding facility without a pipeline to get the gas to the market at the time that the project first began working with the State of Oregon in 2004. It makes no sense, now, BWL argues, to suggest that BWL would continue to spend millions of dollars in the permitting process for a pipeline that was not going to be used.

Columbia Riverkeepers continues to assert, as can be seen in its last two press releases, that the gas that is coming from the Bradwood Landing holding tanks is intended for California, with Oregon merely being a “conduit”.

• Columbia Riverkeeper and local citizens have argued since 2006 that the Bradwood pipeline does not make sense because there is no way for the gas to get to California.
• The Palomar Pipeline leads directly to the California-bound GTN pipeline so nearly all of the Bradwood Landing gas now has a direct conduit to California.
• Considering that Bradwood has an agreement to use Palomar to take the gas to California, this report is highly deceptive.
• However, it is clear that Bradwood needs Palomar to serve California markets.
  
  
  In fact, Columbia Riverkeepers is protesting all of Palomar’s permitting process in Oregon at local, state and federal levels, in the hope of blocking its ability to come into Oregon from the Rockies. While protesting the pipeline, Columbia Riverkeepers has referred to the Oregon Department of Energy’s report to Governor Kulongoski which opined that LNG was not needed. Oregon Department of Energy went on to predicate its determination on the assumption that natural gas from the Midwest would be able to adequately supply Oregon along with what is provided from Canada.
  
  

  Although CRK continues to use the DOE report as a reason why LNG is not needed, CRK has refused to clarify the discrepancy -that it continues to fight the very thing that makes the DOE report on imported LNG a valid argument. The following week a memo from Oregon’s Public Utilities Commission to Governor Kulongoski stated that Oregon is served primarily by Canadian natural gas that is shipped via a pipeline through Washington. “Oregon also receives natural gas from the Rocky Mountain states via the Northwest Pipeline that accesses the Opal Hub in Wyoming.” The memo went on to report that about 70% of Northwest natural gas comes from Canada. The Northwest pipeline from Wyoming is currently operating at or near capacity.
  

  The press releases are contained in the NorthCoastOregon article Lng press releases accuse deception.
  

  A related article regarding the Oregon Department of Energy report and the Oregon Public Utility memo to Governor Kulongoski can be read at NorthCoastOregon’s PUC memo says LNG storage could benefit the state.

72 Comments

Nicole Williams to take helm until new county manager hired

Carrie Bartoldus February 26, 2009

Assistant county manager, Nicole Williams, will be taking over manager duties on March 1st when interim county manager, Andy Anderson’s, contract runs out at the end of this month. With the hire of a new county manager eminent, the Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners decided not to extend Anderson’s contract. All five of the commissioners commended Anderson for a job well done and thanked him for his services and the inconvenience of commuting from his home in Bend.

Anderson is a veteran of 36 years in city government. He served as city manager of Medford from 1987 to 1997, and most recently was city manager of Bend from 2004 until his retirement in 2007. He also has worked in cities in Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Illinois. Clatsop County paid Anderson $8,500 per month, plus $1,500 a month living expenses, for his services since his start date October 13, 2008.

Williams replaced longtime county employee Debra Kraske last February, coming from her post as Clatsop County Clerk, where she served since 2005. Before that Williams was the chief deputy clerk for nearly five years. She was the records supervisor for the department for three years. Williams began working for the county in 1997 as a payroll accountant in the Central Services financial division. She has a bachelor’s degree in speech communications from Western Oregon State College and minored in business, taking courses in accounting and business management.

The BOCC appointed Commissioners Raichl and Roberts to work out William’s additional duties and compensation. Williams will serve in her new capacity until a new manager is hired which is expected to occur in mid- or late March.

In other board business

Russ Farmer was appointed to another term on the Budget Committee. After posting notices for a month in local media venues Mr. Farmer was the lone applicant for the position, he serves from District 1.

Lecktro asked for a letter of support to Congress, to support their products being on an appropriations list. Passed unanimously.

Rick Gardner with CEDR asked for monetary commitment so that lobbyist Jim Beal could be retained to continue lobbying efforts in Congress for Clatsop County and the cities here. Astoria and the Port have both agreed to monetary commitments and Gardner has asked other cities to help also. The Board agreed to commit $1,500 a month through May when it would have a better idea of financial picture.

Pulled from the Consent Calendar

Commissioner Raichl asked that the Commission Goals be pulled from the consent calendar so that the rough framing around the wording regarding bringing together people for emergency dike repairs could be expanded to include infrastructure building to include relating to water and transportation, specifically. The Board approved unanimously and staff was directed to change wording and include it on next meeting agenda.

Commissioner Roberts asked that the contract with the Port for the loan for the purchase of Tongue Point be pulled as the loan did not specify that it was for the purchase of Tongue Point. She asked that the wording be amended to reflect the intent of the loan, specifically. The Board approved unanimously and staff was directed to prepare document accordingly.

Commissioner Rohn asked that the item regarding 2009 Restatement of Clatsop County”s Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust be pulled and stated that he recuesing himself from discussion or vote. The Board approved unanimously 4-0 with Rohn recuesing.

Consent Calendar approved

BOCC regular meeting minutes 28 JAN 2009
BOCC work session minutes 11 FEB 2009
County Counsel services contract and 2008-09 budget adjustment
Letter to lawmakers re HB 2436
Approval of construction contract with Warrenton Fiber

Lawyer asks Ethics Commission to dismiss preliminary findings in Jewell School Board case

Carrie Bartoldus February 24, 2009

One lawyer has responded to the preliminary findings resulting from an investigation conducted by staff for the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, completed January 30th. Attorney Roy Pulvers has asked the Commission to dismiss the preliminary findings of the staff and if it will not do that to, “at most, and “in lieu of finding a violation of law,” the Commission should issue a written letter of explanation or education, pursuant to ORS 244.350(5).” Pulvers is representing Ann Samuelson.

Last year, in August 2008, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission began an investigation of eight current and former Jewell School Board directors, initiated after a complaint was made by Lauren Jacobsen, herself a past director on the same school board, earlier that year.

Jacobsen charged that the board members had broken the law in 20 executive sessions and asked that they be investigated. According to Ronald A. Bersin, Executive Director, Oregon Government Ethics Commission, the Commission can charge up to $5,000.00 and require up to two times the financial benefit if a public official violates any of the laws in ORS Chapter 244. However, Bersin cautioned, in this particular instance, if a public official relies on its legal council for advice on executive sessions, the Commission is prohibited from charging a civil penalty.

The investigation of Jacobsen’s complaint included minutes relating to the 20 executive sessions that were convened between October 2006 and March 2008 and include board members Karl Meier, Ulrich “Oly” Schockelt, Carrie Thompson, Terri Greenwood, Ann Samuelson, Alan Foster, Cathy Rosinek and Tania Skinner. Foster and Skinner are the only two that are current board directors.

Ironically, Schockelt led a recall campaign against Samuelson and Meier, alleging in mailers and an open letter to the Jewell community that as the “two most senior members of our school board” Meier and Samuelson “had inappropriate discussions behind closed doors.” In the Ethic Commission’s preliminary findings Samuelson and Schockelt have both been charged with violating executive session meeting laws for the exact same three meetings. Schockelt was the senior board member at these meetings having served a full term before Samuelson was appointed. Meier and Samuelson were subsequently recalled May, 2008.

The turmoil dates back to October 2006, when the board put former superintendent-principal John Seeley and later his wife, kindergarten teacher Laura Seeley, on paid leave, pending the results of a criminal investigation and subsequent child abuse charges. Because of Oregon law pertaining to not allowing those charged with child abuse to hold positions in school administration or teaching executive sessions were held, according to the ethics investigation, so that legal matters could be discussed and an interim superintendent could be hired.

The Ethics Commission staff found that on all occasions the Jewell School Board met in executive session on the advice of legal counsel and as such the Commission would be prohibited from charging a civil penalty. Notwithstanding, the Ethics Commission staff found that four separate executive sessions resulted in four distinct violations of ORS 192.660(2) had occurred and as such all eight school board members had committed violations, to a certain extent: Karl Meier (4 violations), Ann Samuelson (3 violations), Ulrich Schockelt (3 violations) and Carrie Thompson (3 violations), Terri Greenwood (2 violations), Cathy Rozinek (1 violation), Allen Foster (1 violation), Tania Skinner (1 violation).

The preliminary findings are hard to follow. For instance, the preliminary findings seem to suggest there isn’t enough evidence to make a determination, then it goes on to make a determination. For example:

[1/30/08] In the public meeting following this executive session there was a motion passed to adopt a resolution that changed Mr. Jones title from Interim Superintendent to Superintendent and extend his employment agreement by 24 months. One member of the board of directors believed that this resolution was discussed in the preceding executive session. Three other participants in the executive session indicated that the resolution was not discussed in the executive session, but they were aware of Mr. Jones willingness to extend the term of his employment agreement. There is not a preponderance of evidence to indicate that the resolution was discussed in the executive session in violation of ORS 192.660.
The evidence relating to the executive session held on 1/30/08 is sufficient to recommend making a preliminary finding that [Meier, Rozinek, Foster, Skinner] participated in an executive session to discuss the Maintenance Supervisor’s contract which was not authorized by provisions set forth in ORS 192.660(2).

In another example the staff feels that the wrong provision was used and proper prerequisites weren’t followed.

As in the executive sessions that were held on 10/30/06 and 1/20/07, the prerequisites set forth in ORS 192.660(7) were not satisfied and the board of directors violated ORS 192.660(2)(a) when the presiding officer provided this provision as the statutory authority for holding the executive session and again violated ORS 192.660(2)(a) by discussing the selection of Mr. Jones as the school district’s chief executive officer.
The evidence relating to the executive session held on 5/16/07 is sufficient to recommend making a preliminary finding that [Meier, Shockelt, Samuelson, Thompson, Greenwood] participated in an executive session to discuss topics not authorized by ORS 192.660(2)(a) and for which the prerequisites in ORS 192.660(7) were not satisfied.

Jim Mabbot, superintendent of NWRESD, states, “I believe that the Jewell School Board was correct in all four instances. They did nothing wrong. Out of all of the bogus claims against them by a frustrated community member, at the end of a long investigation, four were mentioned. This was not the best use of valuable tax payer dollars.”

The Northwest Regional Education Service District (NWRESD or ESD) has the job of providing support services to the school districts. They provide Special Education, Instructional Services and Technology Support to the 20 School Districts in Clatsop, Columbia, Tillamook and Washington Counties. The Northwest Regional ESD’s service area includes more than 170 public schools and serves 115, 373 students. When school districts are in trouble or need help they often turn to the NWRESD for guidance, support and answers, as the Jewell School Board did in the fall of 2007.

Mabbot clarifies what the Jewell Board was experiencing during the executive sessions, “Hiring an interim superintendent is very similar to hiring a substitute teacher. Oregon state law says that school boards must hire licensed staff but substitute teachers are hired every day without the board taking action, without them being posted or advertised. The same logic applies to the interim superintendent. You cannot hire a person into the job with any permanence because someone else currently holds that position (in this case, John Seeley).”

When asked if the school board should have done something differently, or what NWRESD would recommend school board members do in similar situations Mabbot responded, “My advice to board members is to get advice from their legal counsel and follow it. That is exactly why the Jewell board members have no sanctions or fines against them.”

In the Objection to Final Order, Samuelson’s attorney, Roy Pulver, writes,

“… the Commission appears to have concluded that the job description for the position and hiring policies of the Board, all in place for years, were not sufficient to satisfy the law requiring hiring procedures, standards, criteria and public comment. In addition, the Commission appears to have concluded that the act of making the vacancy known to a statewide body of licensed school administrators was insufficient to satisfy the law requiring advertisement of the position.

In both of these respects the lawyer for the School District and senior statewide school administrators involved in the decisions strongly disagree with the Commission and have concluded that the Executive Sessions were properly held. In all events, and in each instance, the purpose of the meeting was to facilitate the ability to attract and hire in an emergency an Interim Superintendent for the District so that the school could operate.”

Bersin said that next the Board members can move for a contested case or or they can settle their case with the Commission. Samuelson is the only board member who has made a decision to respond to the preliminary findings at this point.

Seeley Update

According to George Finch, Coordinator of Professional Practices with the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission, on May 16, 2008, the Commission considered reports regarding John and Laura Seeley. The Commission voted to charge both with violations of standards. An educator has 21 days following the date of the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing within which to request a hearing. The commission cannot suspend, revoke, or otherwise take action against a license until the case is completed. The case is completed whenever any of the following occurs:

1. The educator agrees to the charges and enters into a settlement agreement and discipline order describing the discipline and conditions of the discipline.
   
2. The commission enters a final order as a result of a hearing officer’s recommendation and the educator’s decision to not further appeal the commission’s decision to the Court of Appeals.
   
3. The educator fails to respond to the charges and the commission enters a Default Order against the educator that includes the terms of any discipline on the license (unless there is an appeal to the Court of Appeals).
   

Finch clarified that an educator’s license remains active until the commission takes final action that results in either a suspension or a revocation. A suspension may not exceed one year and may be for as little as 30 days. At the end of a suspension, barring any further misconduct, the license is generally reinstated upon application by the educator. A revocation based on facts not related to serious criminal convictions is for one year. An educator may apply for reinstatement of the revocation after one year has expired and must convince the commission with compelling evidence that the educator is “fit” to be relicensed. An educator is eligible for employment so long as the educator holds an active license.

Whether the educator must disclose whether they are being investigated by the commission and/or charged by the commission depends on various factors, including whether the employing school district asks the educator to disclose this type of information. The Commission does not govern the employment contracts between districts and educators. If the commission takes final action against the educator the order, including the charges and facts found by the commission become public information.

Seeley, Laura L.—Charged by Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission on 05-16-08. Contested case hearing scheduled before the Office of Administrative Hearings for April 28-29, 2009.

Seeley, John H.—Charged by Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission on 05-16-08. Contested case hearing scheduled before the Office of Administrative Hearings for June 2-5, 2009.


192.660 Executive sessions permitted on certain matters; procedures; news media representatives’ attendance; limits. (a) To consider the employment of a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent. (b) To consider the dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent who does not request an open hearing. © To consider matters pertaining to the function of the medical staff of a public hospital (d) To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations. (e) To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions. (f) To consider information or records that are exempt by law from public inspection. (g) To consider preliminary negotiations involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is in competition with governing bodies in other states or nations. (h) To consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. (i) To review and evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer of any public body, a public officer, employee or staff member who does not request an open hearing. (j) To carry on negotiations under ORS chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments.

244.350 Civil penalties; letter of reprimand or explanation. (5)In lieu of or in conjunction with finding a violation of law or any resolution or imposing a civil penalty under this section, the commission may issue a written letter of reprimand, explanation or education.

4 Comments

BOCC briefed on LUBA decision

Carrie Bartoldus January 30, 2009

Clatsop County Commissioners updated on Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals decision on Bradwood Landing Land Use Application

At the Wednesday evening Clatsop County Board of County Commissioner meeting, county counsel, Blair Henningsgaard, commended the Board for the work they did on the Bradwood Landing land use application process and stated that he would like it understood that LUBA did not “overturn” the Board’s decision. LUBA remanded one and one half issues back to the County for further action. Henningsgaard also stressed that LUBA denied all of the challenges to the due-process elements of the county’s review of the Bradwood project application.

After the BOCC meeting Henningsgaard was asked to clarify if these issues would have to be reheard. He stated that it was up to the petitioner (Bradwood, in this instance) since it was the petitioner who wanted an action to take place. Bradwood could use the evidence already presented in the findings of over 50,000 pages of documentation or could ask for it to be reheard in order to present additional evidence.

In the case of the terminology used to define “protect” for instance, Henningsgaard elucidated, LUBA said the County findings referenced an incorrect source for the definition of the term “protect” in context of Statewide Planning Goals [16 and 17]. Bradwood Landing will have no problem in answering LUBA’s request for further action, according to Bradwood Landing Senior Vice President for External Affairs Joe Desmond, “This is a definitional issue, since under section 1.035 Rules of Construction, Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance (LWDUO), there is a ranking of how the language should be interpreted. It is an issue that can easily be clarified.”

The second finding that LUBA remanded back to the County for further action dealt with the project scale. LUBA states, “The Bradwood Subarea Plan discusses the “limited potential for small to medium sized” industrial use of the site, but relates that limited potential to the site’s development constraints, including “poor highway access and proximity to the wildlife refuge.” LUBA goes on to clarify, “The county is on stronger footing in citing the Goal 9 comprehensive plan element and the fact that the LWDUO specifically exempts the Bradwood site from building size limitations otherwise applicable in the MI zone.”

In conclusion LUBA writes “…county erred in its primary conclusion that the scale restriction is a mere restatement of the fill limitation, and because the county erred in limiting the scope of “development activities” to the upland acres covered by the LNG facility itself, we conclude that remand is necessary for the county re-evaluate whether the proposed development activities, considered as a whole, comply with the “small or moderate” scale limitation.”

Desmond explains the LUBA ruling thus: “LUBA did not rule the County erred in finding the project small to moderate in scale. Instead, LUBA found that the County is on strong footing in citing the Goal 9 comprehensive plan element and the fact that the LWDUO specifically exempts the Bradwood site from building size limitations otherwise applicable in the Marine Industrial zone is informative. Rather, LUBA said the County’s findings need to reflect that in making its determination, the record covered a broader definition of the term development for things such as in water structures, powerlines, and pipelines. Information related to each of these items is already on the record.”

Ed Wegner, Transportation and Development Services Director, told the board that no appeals of the LUBA ruling are filed by the Feb. 17 deadline, the matter comes back to the Board, which will then have an additional 90 days to review and act on the remanded issues.

Columbia Riverkeepers (CRK) continue to describe the LUBA decision as a big victory that would bring state agencies to a halt in processing a number of necessary permits for Bradwood. CRK also stated that Intervenor-Petitioners, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITF), was also successful in its appeal in which they alleged eight substantive and procedural errors in the County’s approval of the Bradwood project. LUBA, in fact, denied all eight and CRITF did not win on a single issue.

Opponents of Bradwood have hotly contested the scale of the Bradwood project. Steve Forrester, editor of the Daily Astorian, and its manager editor, Patrick Webb have played tag team taking turns raking the Board over the coals, accusing them of acting like “drunken sailors” and writing, “One of the commission’s most egregious acts was finding that the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal at Bradwood Landing was not a major development” and “That county’s decree was a howler.”

Columbia Riverkeepers argued to LUBA, “that the nature and scale of the LNG terminal is clearly not “small or moderate.” In a video taped interview a reporter asked Dan Serres, Columbia Riverkeeper conservation director and Program Coordinator with FLOW (Friends of Living. Oregon Waters) How big of a footprint is this facility? Would it be pretty large? Serres replied, “No, actually, they’re not that large. The facilities fit 50 to 100 acres …” (see clip of video below).

9 Comments

LUBA Approves 90% of Bradwood Landing’s Consolidated Land Use Application

Carrie Bartoldus January 28, 2009

Yesterday, January 27th, The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) issued its opinion on the Bradwood Landing Project Consolidated Land Use Application striking down 19 arguments made by Columbia Riverkeepers.

In a major blow to the opposition, LUBA agreed on all points with the County’s analysis in granting a variance for upgrades to enhance the safety of Clifton Road, the terminal access road for the public, including first responders, employees and local residents.

“Today’s 50-page LUBA decision is well reasoned and supported by an exhaustive record comprising 10,000 pages of analysis and studies,” NorthernStar Natural Gas Senior Vice President for External Relations Joe Desmond countered. “By siding with the County’s conclusions in nearly every instance, LUBA has reaffirmed that the County’s original approval was well founded and supported by the record. We are confident the remaining two items remanded by LUBA can be successfully resolved. Today’s decision moves our project closer to providing a much needed economic boost to Clatsop County and helping to stabilize the region’s long-term energy costs.”

When issuing its final opinion and order, LUBA addresses the issues presented in the Petition for Review, setting forth the reasons for its ruling. The order will end with one of the following actions:
• “Affirm” (uphold) the challenged decision;
• “Reverse” (overrule) the challenged decision;
• “Remand” the challenged decision (return it to the local government or special district for further action);
• “Dismiss” the appeal; or in special circumstances
• “Transfer” the appeal to the circuit court per ORS 19.230(4), a Motion to Transfer must be filed by the requesting party.

Two challenged land use decisions were remanded back to Clatsop County to fix. One dealing with clarifying a definition when using the word “protect,” and the other relating to the criteria used to determine the size of a facility.

The Columbia Riverkeepers (CRK) called the LUBA decision a victory. In a press release CRK stated that LUBA had “overturned Clatsop County’s decision to approve the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and pipeline.” CRK further stated that the LUBA decision halts the Bradwood Landing project in its tracks and “further invalidated Bradwood’s land use permits.”

Recently, however, CRK learned that their assertion that the defeated referendum 4-131 would stop the Bradwood Landing project “in its tracks” and from being issued any further permits was not true, either.

Columbia Riverkeepers, under then director, Brent Foster (currently on staff with Oregon Attorney General Kroger), dispersed fliers to voters opposing referendum 4-131 regarding upholding a land use law. Stating it was dealing with LNG pipelines in parks only, and had nothing to do with the Bradwood Landing project, the fliers stated that even those who were for LNG didn’t want LNG pipelines in their parks.

Within days of the defeat of the referendum on September 16, CRK sent a letter to Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) stating that because of the defeated referendum DEQ must halt processing all permits for Bradwood Landing. Columbia Riverkeeper spokesperson, Olivia Schmidt, appeared at numerous Clatsop County Board of County Commissioner meetings. Schmidt could be heard yelling from the audience, “you’re out of order,” at the Commissioners during meetings because they had not yet responded to a query initiated by CRK from the Department of Justice on behalf of DEQ.

Columbia Riverkeepers finally received a response from the Department of Justice in its quest to have the Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners sanctioned in some way.

Brett [VandenHuevel],

You have asked how DEQ plans to respond to Clatsop County’s delay in answering my October 10th letter. That letter, as you know, asked the County to update the information in its LUCS in response to the successful referral of the County amendment to the OPR zone. This issue is important because a portion of the proposed pipeline (approximately .7 of a mile) lies within the OPR zone. The pending application for Section 401 certification is affected by the referral and the same would be true for a future application to register under the NPDES general permit (1200-C) for construction of the pipeline.

DEQ is aware the County Commission directed planning staff to temporarily withhold a response to the letter. I also sent a similar request to Northern Star and the Company also has asked DEQ for more time to respond. My assumption is that both the County and Northern Star want to find out how LUBA will rule on the validity of the other land use changes before responding. My understanding is that LUBA should make a decision within the next few weeks.

At this point in time, DEQ does not intend to take any action based on the lack of response from the County or Northern Star. As noted above, it is DEQ’s view that this land use issue affects only a portion of the proposed pipeline and at this point Section 401 certification is the only pending application that would be affected by the LUCS. There is a great amount of material that DEQ must review before denial or issuance of certification and much of that work is focused on the impacts of the terminal and associated dredging. While the environmental impacts associated with the pipeline are also substantial, DEQ is not currently focused on those issues, so it is not yet burdened by the lack of a response.

We anticipate that we will have a responses from the County and Northern Star later this month and, if so, that will be acceptable to DEQ. If DEQ doesn’t get responses within this period, we will let the County and Northern Star know of our concerns. DEQ believes that it is important for the County to supplement the LUCS, but under ORS 197.180 and applicable implementing rules DEQ can make its own findings on this issue if the County chooses not to respond.
Larry Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General

Columbia Riverkeepers and other opponents of the Bradwood project contend that the terminal and pipeline would kill endangered salmon, increase foreign fossil fuel dependence, and impose eminent domain on small private landowners.

Bradwood Landing counters that their Salmon Enhancement Initiative (SEI) at $59 million represents the largest private commitment to improve watershed health on the Lower Columbia River. Bradwood plans on obtaining its LNG from Australia, Indonesia and possibly from Alaska. Eminent domain has not entered the picture for the Bradwood holding terminals as it is all being built on private land held by one property owner.

According to Columbia Riverkeepers press release Cheryl Johnson, a 30-year resident of Clatsop County and a volunteer Estuary Coordinator for Columbia Riverkeeper, remained firm that the Bradwood LNG project should not move forward. “LUBA’s decision only adds to the fact that the people of Clatsop County have spoken and spoken clearly: we oppose Bradwood LNG.”

Peter Huhtala, Astoria resident and Executive Director of the Columbia River Business Alliance, stated, “LNG is bad for business in Clatsop County. Not only is LNG more expensive for businesses than domestic natural gas, but relying on Russia and the Middle East for gas supplies creates instability that we just don’t need.”

A regional analysis of the effects of increased natural gas supply from a Columbia River LNG terminal by University of Oregon economist Dr. Phil Romero, showed that Bradwood could reduce the wholesale cost of natural gas by 13 percent. Dr. Romero’s analysis showed this decrease in energy costs would help support the creation of between 5,100 and 20,300 jobs.

“Construction of the Bradwood terminal would put hundreds of people to work providing a new source of natural gas to meet the region’s energy needs,” said Desmond. “While there’s no silver bullet to meet all of the region’s energy needs, clean-burning natural gas can provide a bridge to the renewable energy future we all want.”

29 Comments

Oregon’s AG protests LNG projects in Oregon - Is against fossil fuel

Carrie Bartoldus January 16, 2009

Oregon’s newly appointed Attorney General, John Kroger, made no secret on the campaign trail that he was against the LNG industry coming to Oregon. In one of his first public outings since taking office January 5th, Kroger spoke to an audience of approximately 100 people protesting LNG projects being proposed in Oregon. “Do you want LNG from Iran and Russia or do you want energy independence?” Kroger shouted. The chorus echoed back, “No!” Last year’s protest at the state’s capital drew a crowd about double the size.

Among those in the audience were the Columbia Riverkeepers (CRK), there to not only protest but to congratulate their former director, Brent Foster, who joined Kroger’s staff as the new environmental crimes prosecutor. Foster sent out emails in December informing the members of his appointment to the AG staff. “Since it’s often the first question I am asked I will tell you that, yes- my work will include helping articulate how the Dept. of Justice will respond to the proposed LNG terminals in Oregon and their related pipelines.” Foster’s follow-up email asked for contributions to be sent to Columbia Riverkeeper’s so the organization would have the money to “stand up to LNG speculators.”



At a recent viewing of the film Crossroads of the Columbia, Cheryl Johnson, an Astoria activist against LNG development invited guests to ask Foster, who was also in attendance, questions regarding the Dept of Justice and where the LNG projects were involved at the state level. However, Tony Green, communications and policy director for the Attorney General’s office, stated that Foster was not at the viewing of the film as a representative of the Department of Justice but merely on a personal basis and that Foster did not answer any questions regarding the Department of Justice and LNG projects at the event.

Green said that Kroger had been invited to attend Tuesday’s rally by Columbia Riverkeepers and his speech had been, “off the cuff”. Kroger told the group that Iran and Russia would be two major sources for liquefied natural gas in Oregon and that protecting the environment and land for farming and forests are good reasons to oppose the terminals. But, Kroger said, the “most decisive reason” is the country’s dependence on foreign fuel.

That isn’t what Bradwood Landing Senior Vice President for External Affairs Joe Desmond thinks. Desmond appeared on the Lars Larson Show later on the same day as the protest and was asked many of the points that Kroger brought up. “The most likely sources for getting our LNG, at this time, is Australia and Indonesia,” said Desmond. When an angry caller asked Desmond to admit that it would be coming from Russia an exasperated Larson wanted to cut him off but Desmond asked him not to so that he could explain how Bradwood would look for the best prices using the least amount of transportation to cut down on costs. Desmond also agreed with another caller’s concern that the renewable energy might be left behind if the state turned to only one source to supply its energy needs. “We have to realize that wind nor solar can take on the energy needs of Oregon at this time, by theirselves, they just aren’t able to and I don’t think anyone in those fields is suggesting they are,” said Desmond. “Oregon needs to approach the issue of energy with a multi-faceted policy, one that makes energy consistent and affordable for the residential consumer and the industries that rely on it.”

Desmond also fielded questions regarding the environment and salmon mitigation, both areas that Bradwood explained in an exhaustive 50,000+ page document that was recently compiled to be sent to the Land Use Board of Appeals. In what is now a private property, Bradwood plans a 500 acre protected habitat which has many potentials including being opened to the public as a park or having some sort of educational or informational project. Also planned is a voluntary Salmon Enhancement Initiative (SEI), which at $59 million, represents the largest private commitment to improve watershed health on the Lower Columbia River.

Peter Hansen, Oregon LNG’s chief executive officer, said that the countries that their facility would be receiving LNG from would be Qatar and Australia, both very friendly nations with the United States. Hansen said that in talking with Northwest Natural Gas about its plans to bring in the Palomar Pipeline and the accusations that prime farmland was being rendered useless because of the route of the pipeline, NW Natural had told him that the total impacted by the pipeline was one acre of vineyards. Because of the fact that they were required to work with landowners and find routes that impacted the land and agriculture the least, the pipeline will have very little economic or ecological impact on the land.

Hansen is dismayed with the misinformation that is circulated about the LNG industry. At one time touted by all environmentalists as a “green” energy, and still done so in Europe and Asian countries, LNG is suddenly being attacked by environmentalists in the United States, leaving Hansen a little perplexed, along with the atmosphere of xenophobia that the “friendly” people at Columbia Riverkeepers like to preserve. Hansen is Danish, but has been an United States citizen for over 20 years. His partner, Mohammed Alrai, is an American born citizen who has been accused of being from many different countries of the middle-east by members of the Columbia Riverkeepers. Ironically, many of CRK’s members belong to the Rural Organizing Project, an advocacy group which has been fighting for the rights of recent immigrants to Columbia County.

Both Bradwood and Oregon LNG stated that another possible place that was considering sending LNG to Oregon could be Alaska. Because of the harsh terrain between where their natural gas fields are where the gas needs to go, Alaska said it would be much easier and more economical for it to ship its gas to the lower states rather than pipe it and it wouldn’t have to deal with Canada in trying to bring the pipeline through that country to supply our country. Newly elected Senator, Jeff Merkley, made a campaign promise that he would support legislature that would force Alaska to sell to the states before shipping to other countries.

Energy Action Northwest, a coalition that advocates for clean, affordable and reliable energy supplies, is weighing in on the side of the LNG corporations. Edward Finklea, a Portland attorney who has an extensive background in energy issues and policy development, is Executive Director of the advocacy group and recently wrote an article in their newsletter titled, Cold Snap: What must we learn? In the article Finklea details the usage of natural gas in December, during the coldest part of the cold snap, over a three day period. During that historic records for natural gas send-outs were set . At the same time, historic records were set for hourly electric system peak loads. Yet, according to Finklea, during much of the cold snap, winds were at or near 0 MPH, so wind generation was not available to meet demand.

Finklea writes, “The Williams system has been constrained for gas coming out of Rockies off and on since November. Some of the region’s gas utilities had to curtail deliveries to interruptible customers to meet firm demand on the coldest days. We’re running at close to capacity for Rockies gas. When capacity was reached, Canadian gas and storage were the only gas supply options we could turn to this winter.” Finklea goes on to conclude that Oregon risks experiencing gas supply shortages during cold snaps if interstate pipeline infrastructure isn’t constructed or liquefied natural gas projects aren’t allowed to come in.

Green was asked what Kroger thought about Alaska shipping its natural gas to Oregon. Green said that Kroger was against Oregon relying on fossil fuel for energy, no matter where it came from. When asked which renewable energy industry Kroger thought was ready to take on the needs of the Oregon’s industries right now and how much of the grid could it take over from natural gas Green said it wasn’t the Attorney General’s place to set energy policies, only to see that energy companies followed Oregon state laws.
104 Comments

Columbia’s Crossroads previewed by one side of the equation

Carrie Bartoldus January 14, 2009

Tuesday, January 6th, Donna Quinn showed her film Crossroads on the Columbia to a packed room at The Loft in the Red Building in Astoria, Oregon. Cinematographer Spence Palermo shot the footage with Quinn writing the storyline depicting the efforts of the local people who are against LNG development in Clatsop County.

Appearing in the film and narrating, in part, is recent appointee to Attorney General Kroger’s staff, Brett Foster. According to Cheryl Johnson, local activist and one of the evening MC’s, Foster also attended the showing of the film and was available to answer questions on the DOJ and where LNG projects are currently at in the state level.

Also appearing on the film and attending the film debut was newly elected County Commissioner Dirk Rohn, along with Astoria Port Commissioner Kathy Sanders. Rohn was on the County Planning Commission, which made many decisions in the permitting process regarding the Bradwood Landing LNG development. On the film Rohn describes his commitment to following the desires of his constituents regarding the recent defeat of ballot measure 4-131, a land use referendum pertaining to pipelines going through lands zoned OPR (open spaces, parks, and recreation).

The film gave a cursory overview of the two LNG developments progress up to the present time. Peter Hansen, spokesman for Oregon LNG, agreed to appear in the film and gave Donna Quinn an interview. Hansen’s interview is cut to about a minute and concludes with sea lions barking. Hansen said he was under the impression that Quinn was doing a true documentary about the development of LNG on the Columbia River, interviewing people from both sides of the dispute. He was disappointed to find out that the video was being used as a fundraising tool for Columbia Riverkeeper’s efforts to keep LNG development out of the state. Quinn stated at the end of the evening that all money received on the sale of the DVD would be contributed to Columbia Riverkeepers. Hansen said he hadn’t been offered a copy of the movie and couldn’t say much more until he had a chance to view it.

Joe Desmond also appears in the film. Unlike Hansen, Desmond was not interviewed and appears via stock footage. Again, at the end of Desmond talking the sea lions bark. Desmond said that he was unaware that the movie had been shot and had no idea that he was appearing in it. Since he had not seen the movie Desmond was unable to make a comment on his appearance in it.

Cinematographer Spence Palermo is best known in Oregon for his work on the film Ballot Measure 9 described as, “A fast-paced crash course in homophobic legislation and the religious right that details Oregon’s 1992 anti-gay ballot initiative.” Written, directed and produced by Heather MacDonald the film won the audience award for best documentary at the 1995 Sundance Film Festival. A New York Times movie critic stated that:

“… [MacDonald] makes no pretense of even-handedness, she readily shows Mr. Mabon in a disparaging light. But the scenes in which he voices his opinions in small, half-empty rooms are dangerously misleading because the Citizens Alliance efforts proved so effective. “Ballot Measure 9” is best watched as a cautionary study of why this group was able to find such strength in numbers, and what to expect from similar local ballot referendums that have since cropped up in other states.”

Unable to attend the meeting because of flooding in the Elsie region, Representative Deborah Boone asked that the legislation she is sponsoring be read at the meeting. Called The LNG Protection Act the legislation states, among other things, that Oregon agencies can issue leases of State lands, water rights, or wetland fill permits only if there is a demonstrated need for LNG and if the price of LNG does not exceed domestic natural gas. The Oregon Department of Energy (ODE) would determine whether there is a need for LNG in Oregon.

While the crowd at the Tuesday meeting was told that the ODE had already declared LNG was not needed, the LNG corporations are making sure that the legislation comes under close scrutiny. Charles Deister, the project spokesman for Bradwood Landing stated, “The need for natural gas supplies has been well established with the Oregon Public Utility Commission by NW Natural and other utilities. This evidence was submitted as sworn testimony under penalty of law.” Also pointed out by LNG proponents was the fact that ODE’s reference to LNG not being needed in Oregon was based on the condition that additional nuclear and coal plants were built. At this time Columbia Riverkeepers, along with several other conservation groups, is opposed to additional building of either type of plant and have stopped several projects while still in their planning stages.

Another part of the LNG Protection Act calls for LNG facilities to be prohibited when the identified fire-risk zone for the LNG facility overlaps with a high sensitivity use, such as day care centers, hospitals, or elder care facilities. This common-sense requirement keeps LNG facilities away from vulnerable citizens in the event of a low probability but high consequence LNG accident or terrorist attack. Deister responded by stating that LNG facilities have operated safely in Oregon since 1969. Applying the proposed safety standards could shut down these critical facilities and more importantly, would effectively shut down commerce on the Columbia River for any cargo deemed hazardous including gasoline, diesel and fertilizer – common cargoes on the River.

Copies of Crossroads on the Columbia are available from the Columbia Riverkeepers website and are available for $12 with all proceeds to go to the non-profit organization. Locals interested in learning more about the efforts to keep LNG development from progressing are encouraged to attend the meeting at the Alderbrook Community Hall, February 9th, when the group will begin meeting on a regular basis. For further information contact Laurie Caplan, 503-338-6508, email .

3 Comments