http://www.northcoastoregon.com/ NCO Articles en family@twowings.net Copyright 2008 2008-07-23T12:30:00-08:00 http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/rare_americorp_worker_gets_final_project_approved_and_fond_farewell/ http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/rare_americorp_worker_gets_final_project_approved_and_fond_farewell/#When:12:30:00Z On July 22nd the Warrenton City Council unanimously voted to approve the Adopt a Park or Trail Program presented by Warrenton’s Trails Coordinator Sarah Shewell, a member of AmeriCorps’ Resource Assistance for Rural Environments (RARE). Also at the July 22nd meeting the City Council presented Shewell with a plaque of appreciation for all the work she had done the in the past year including the Adopt a Park proposal, assisted in finishing the inventory and mapping of the Warrenton Trail Network for the Trails Master Plan, as well as a highly successful tree planting project at Corruther’s park and numerous completed grant applications.On July 22nd the Warrenton City Council unanimously voted to approve the Adopt a Park or Trail Program presented by Warrenton’s Trails Coordinator Sarah Shewell, a member of AmeriCorps’ Resource Assistance for Rural Environments (RARE). After first reviewing the plan on July 14th, The Parks Advisory Board unanimously adopted the proposal and recommended the program to the City Commission. The Adopt a Park or Trail program is an organized way for the city to screen individuals or groups who want to assist the city by adopting a section of trail or a specific park. Since the persons applying to adopt a park are volunteers they are not required to do more then they choose to do, however, the city will assist in providing available parks or trail sections for the volunteer (s) to maintain at their convenience. Adopting a Park or Trail provides indirect ownership by an individual volunteer and therefore the volunteering provides many benefits to the city and to the individual. The program has been successful in many cities. Clatsop County and the City of Lebanon programs were examples used in putting this program together. The program would be administered by the Public Works Department with a job description being included in the RARE position to be filled with Shewell’s departure when her term expires at the end of August. Also at the July 22nd meeting the City Council presented Shewell with a plaque of appreciation for all the work she had done the in the past year including the Adopt a Park proposal, assisted in finishing the inventory and mapping of the Warrenton Trail Network for the Trails Master Plan http://www.warrentontrails.org/about/Trails%20Master%20Plan%204-29-08%20p1-35.pdf , as well as a highly successful tree planting project at Corruther’s park and numerous completed grant applications. Warrenton’s Trails Master Plan will enable the existing trail system to be officially recognized as the City of Warrenton’s trail network and to expand this network to other parts of the City. The Plan also recommends improvements that will upgrade the existing system where needed, fill in the missing gaps, and connect to significant environmental features, schools, public facilities, local neighborhoods, historical sites and business districts in Warrenton and throughout the region. The goal of the Warrenton Trails Master Plan is to create a comprehensive network of trails that links destinations, natural features, historic landmarks, community facilities, other transportation facilities, neighborhoods, businesses, regional trails, adjacent communities, and state and federal parks. This trail system will provide connections for residents to travel to work, to shop, and to recreate. It will also double as an additional tsunami evacuation route. The Master Plan states that the trails increase the quality of life which can make an area more attractive for business relocations and in-migration. According to the National Association of Homebuilders, the most desired amenity of prospective buyers is trails. Trails connecting to parks generate economic benefits. Annual visitation to Fort Stevens State Park overall is about 1.4 million, including about 150,000 to the fort site; 350,000 to the campgrounds; and 900,000 to other day use areas in the park. The Plan further explains that the Warrenton Trail System extends beyond the borders of Warrenton expands the opportunities for enjoyment of the entire North Coast region. The Warrenton Waterfront Trail connects to the Fort Stevens Trail Network at the Forest Stevens Park’s east gate located near Seafarers Park, and proceeds through the parks trail network which connects to “Burma Road” at its south end. It goes on to explain that the road terminates at DeLaura Beach Lane, where the trail then utilizes the shoulder on DeLaura Beach Lane and turns east at the intersection with Ridge Road utilizing the shoulder. A proposed 1.2 mile section of trail will connect Ridge Road to the Fort to Sea Trail following the dune and riparian area adjacent to E. Neacoxie Ck. and the north east border of the Camp Rilea Military Installation. A 1.5 mile section of the trail, from Ridge Road to DeLaura Beach Lane, utilizes the shoulders that are proposed for paving improvements by Clatsop County. This trail segment connects the N.E. Camp Rilea Trail and the shoulder trail segment along DeLaura Beach Lane. The Fort to Sea section of the trail will follow the route of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Park’s Fort to Sea trail. Cyclists will go north to Perkins Road following it to the gated entrance to Old Stage Coach Road, and then proceeding on this spur of the Fort to Sea trail until it rejoins the main trail just before the vista point. Pedestrians will proceed directly along the Fort to Sea Trail to Fort Clatsop. The Master Plan gives a history of how it came about stating that in 2002, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department completed a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2003-2007 for Oregon. The outdoor recreation habits of 4,400 Oregonians and 800 residents from California, Washington and Idaho were surveyed in this study. The plan constitutes Oregon’s basic five-year strategy for outdoor recreation. It provides the state with up-to-date regional information and planning tool serving as the basis by which all Oregon recreation providers (state, federal, local and private) are able to: catalog and rank their recreation needs, obtain funding through partnerships and grants, and clarify their respective roles. The completion of the SCORP report allowed the state to maintain its eligibility to participate in the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). (The state has received approximately $235 million from the fund during the last 40 years.) According to the Plan, to allocate LWCF monies in an objective manner, a set of Open Project Selection Process criteria were developed during the 2003- 2007 Oregon SCORP planning process. The Oregon Parks & Recreation Department uses these criteria to evaluate statewide LWCF grant proposals. Regional recreational trends and issues reported by recreational providers in SCORP have implications for Warrenton. For example: Recreational providers consistently report that the recreational infrastructure in Oregon is aging and needs rehabilitation. Recommendation was made to focus rehabilitation priorities on sites and facilities that satisfy current recreational need and ensure long-term performance. SCORP states that people are taking shorter trips closer to home due to less disposable leisure time. The increase in gas prices since SCORP was adopted has also reinforced the desire to limit travel by visiting nearby destinations. Recreational trails are important to Oregonians. The growing number of diverse land and water trail users requires planning to provide additional trail facilities including inter-connected opportunities where appropriate. SCORP has set the top three Region 1 priorities for Land and Water Conservation Fund LWCF funds Funding for additional camping facilities Funding for new and rehabilitated river access facilities. Funding for additional recreation trails (non-motorized). Projects that address these regional and statewide issues will be given additional priority points in LWCF funding requests. According to the RARE biography listing, Sarah Shewell was born and raised in the coastal community of North Bend, OR. She studied resource management and applied ecology at Oregon State University, and graduated summa cum laude with a bachelors degree in environmental science. After college, Sarah furthered her education and training in the environmental field by working for the Student Conservation Association and the New Mexico Public Interest Research Group. Most recently Sarah has been living and working in Juneau, AK, as a Naturalist. Through the RARE program, she has returned to Oregon to explore new environmental career opportunities and make a difference in a rural coastal community. After her year with RARE, Sarah plans to focus on graduate work in watershed management, environmental planning, and sustainable development. Warrenton’s RARE participant will serve as the City’s Trails Coordinator. Specific activities of the RARE participant will include applying for grants, working toward sponsorships, developing design standards, identifying historic and natural features along the trail, developing signage, public facilities, and sighting the area for trail development. There are multiple opportunities to work with regional entities and the public to encourage support and enhance connections to create a larger system of trails. Warrenton’s Parks & Trails Partnership Agreement The Volunteer will: Attend an organizational meeting with the CITY to develop the Addendum A including the Scope of Work. Organize and coordinate volunteers to complete tasks that augment the routine maintenance activities completed by parks staff as outlined in Addendum A. Identify two volunteers from the GROUP who will be responsible for organizing GROUP activities and special projects at the identified park. Provide and keep an updated list of volunteers to be provided to the CITY for volunteer tracking and liability coverage. No volunteer may work in the park until they are duly registered. An adult who is over the age of 18 must accompany all persons between the ages of 1 1 and 18. One adult must be present for every five youth. A parent must accompany anyone under the age of eleven. Record and report volunteer hours on the Volunteer Tracking Form, at the end of the month in which activities occur. The CITY will provide the volunteer tracking form that will be used to track the number of volunteers and a monthly total of each volunteer's hours worked in the month or after each event. Volunteers will provide their own tools or check-out basic tools from the CITY. All tools must have prior approval by the CITY before use or check-out. This can usually be accomplished by a phone call to the Maintenance Supervisor or Manager describing the equipment to be used or borrowed. Conduct volunteer work in the park or on the trail during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to dusk. Take care not to interfere with park and/or trail users. Inform the CITY of any unsafe conditions immediately. Inform the CITY of any illegal activity immediately. Require at least one GROUP volunteer coordinator attend semi-annual inspections of the park with CITY maintenance staff. Abide by all applicable regulations, laws and ordinances of the CITY, the State of Oregon, Oregon OSHA, and any Federal Agency in fulfillment of its obligations under this agreement. The GROUP hereby releases the CITY, its agents, and employees from any liability from damages or injuries resulting from its participation in the Parks and Trails Volunteer program. The Group furthermore agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless for any injuries or damages resulting from or related to its participation in the Parks and Trails Volunteer program. B. The CITY hereby agrees to: Perform turf maintenance as per schedule. Repair/replace property damaged due to vandalism. Provide training for volunteer coordinators that include acceptable methods used to perform the specified tasks. Provide a Parks Volunteer Information Packet that includes the required volunteer forms. Conduct joint semi-annual park andlor trail inspections. Assist volunteer coordinators in the development of grant applications. Within budgetary restraints provide support for special projects. Provide a sign in recognition of the Adopt A Trail andlor Park Group. Supply the GROUP with a sharps container. Assist the GROUPS with graffiti removal. Local News 2008-07-23T12:30:00-08:00 http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/ryan_walsh_an_evening_of_classical_spanish_guitar_music/ http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/ryan_walsh_an_evening_of_classical_spanish_guitar_music/#When:18:41:00Z Ryan Walsh was first inspired to pick up a guitar by Jazz and Rock artists such as Carlos Santana and Eric Clapton, on Sunday, July 27, 7:00 pm, at Clatsop College's Performing Arts Center Ryan will share his passion for the Classical and Spanish traditions.Ryan Walsh was first inspired to pick up a guitar by Jazz and Rock artists such as Carlos Santana and Eric Clapton, but was soon lured into the Classical realm by the musical expressiveness he felt from the instrument. A recent graduate of the University of Oregon, Ryan experienced more focused musical studies through private lessons while at University. Upon graduation Ryan has spent the last year in the romantic, mysterious, wine-laden regions of the Mediterranean. Ryan's experiences in Spain have been a logical next step towards expressing his musical passion. Ryan hopes to share what he has learned from musically-rich Spanish traditions through selections on the guitar. Only one performance, Sunday, July 27th, 7:00 pm at Clatsop Community College's Performing Arts Center (PAC), 16th & Franklin in Astoria, Or. Tickets are $10. Community 2008-07-22T18:41:00-08:00 http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/oregon_coast_albacore_tuna_has_arrived/ http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/oregon_coast_albacore_tuna_has_arrived/#When:00:36:00Z Local Family Taking Tuna Business To The Web It’s been 10 long months for northwest tuna lovers, but they have finally made it to the North Coast on their summer migration across the Pacific. Each year millions of younger Albacore travel up the Oregon coast in mainly August and September to feed on sardines and other smaller fish. Because of their short life span, (11-12 years) they grow very rapidly and will eat 10-25% of their body weight everyday and can swim through the ocean at 30 mph. Once waters off the Oregon Coast warm up to 63 degrees, fishermen like Stuart Arnold head out to sea to track them down. This week the largest schools of Albacore were about 80 miles west of Newport. Most tuna fishermen deliver their catch to local canneries, but some have developed a niche market and are selling their fresh catch right to consumers. This works out well for both because the fishermen can sell them for more than the canneries will pay and the public can buy them for less than at the market. Buyers also know exactly what they are buying, how old the fish are and who caught it.Local Family Taking Tuna Business To The Web It’s been 10 long months for northwest tuna lovers, but they have finally made it to the North Coast on their summer migration across the Pacific. Each year millions of younger Albacore travel up the Oregon coast in mainly August and September to feed on sardines and other smaller fish. Because of their short life span, (11-12 years) they grow very rapidly and will eat 10-25% of their body weight everyday and can swim through the ocean at 30 mph. Once waters off the Oregon Coast warm up to 63 degrees, fishermen like Stuart Arnold head out to sea to track them down. This week the largest schools of Albacore were about 80 miles west of Newport. Most tuna fishermen deliver their catch to local canneries, but some have developed a niche market and are selling their fresh catch right to consumers. This works out well for both because the fishermen can sell them for more than the canneries will pay and the public can buy them for less than at the market. Buyers also know exactly what they are buying, how old the fish are and who caught it. Sunday morning was the first opportunity for Arnold to offer his catch to the public. He left earlier in the week and wife Tami and daughter Heather had about 1200 pounds pre-sold before he even arrived. Mercury Scare The amount of tuna consumed in the U.S. has taken a hit since there were reports of tuna having mercury levels that may be unsafe. While some canned tuna may have levels a bit high, tuna caught off the Oregon and Washington coast are far lower than the average tuna - this according to Michael Morrissey of Oregon State University. Morrissey and colleagues tested 91 albacore tuna caught in waters from southern California to British Columbia. The average mercury concentration was 0.14 parts per million, well below the limit of 1.00 part per million set by the Food and Drug Administration. Tuna that are larger and many times end up on the supermarket shelves are closer to .36 parts per million. The Catch Tuna are caught by local fishermen with “jigs” that they tow behind the boat at sea. Arnold used 12 lines and each had a hook surrounded by a rubber like material that resembled a squid or sardine. Each line also has a paddle a few feet up the line that skips along the water. Once a tuna is on the line the paddle will sink in the water. This tells Matt Brause, Arnold’s Deckhand, that there is a fish on and the tuna are reeled in by hand one-by-one. Each one is then bled and packed on ice - this keeps the tuna between 31 and 32 degrees until delivery. Surfin the web for Tuna This is the first year that the Arnold family has their own website ~ Oregontuna.com. They try to update it as much as possible in order to keep their customers informed. Many travel from Portland and Seattle and want to make sure they don’t waste a trip. Arnold also has a “Captains Blog” where he posts updates and tuna tips. Internet users can also put in an order or give their email address for catch numbers, prices and updates. This weekend Arnold was selling Albacore for $1.75 per pound. By Oregon law he must sell the tuna whole. He can also loin them, but it must be treated as a separate transaction. This year’s tuna are a bit bigger than in years past with most averaging from 16 to 20 pounds. Loined tuna produce about a 50% yield and Arnold charges $6 per fish. Most of Arnold’s customers commented that they will be home canning them in jars, although there are many other uses for fresh tuna. According to the website, Arnold's boat, the Lihue II, will be in again next Monday. Click here to sign up for email updates or to place a pre-order. Arnold's boat is normally docked at the Warrenton Marina. Local News 2008-07-21T00:36:00-08:00 http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/luba_sends_land_use_decision_back_to_coos_county_regarding_lng_project/ http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/luba_sends_land_use_decision_back_to_coos_county_regarding_lng_project/#When:20:00:00Z Southern Oregon Pipeline Information Project, Inc (SOPIP) challenged the recent decision of Coos County Commissioners in regards to land use decisions granted to Jordan Cove Energy Project, LP. The challenge was heard by Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals which remanded parts of the land use decisions back to Coos County’s board of county commissioners. Jordan Cove Energy Project (JCEP), LP, is proposing to build a holding terminal for LNG imports. According to LUBA's decision, the issues remanded to the county to be worked out by JCEP pertain to the Henderson Marsh wetlands and applicant Jordan Cove's use of the area. The next issue involves working with local tribes to protect historical, cultural and archaeological sites, and the final issue applies to policies with waste water and weak foundation soil. Southern Oregon Pipeline Information Project, Inc (SOPIP) challenged the recent decision of Coos County Commissioners in regards to land use decisions granted to Jordan Cove Energy Project, LP. The challenge was heard by Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals which remanded parts of the land use decisions back to Coos County’s board of county commissioners. Jordan Cove Energy Project (JCEP), LP, is proposing to build a holding terminal for LNG imports. According to LUBA's decision, the issues remanded to the county to be worked out by JCEP pertain to the Henderson Marsh wetlands and applicant Jordan Cove's use of the area. The next issue involves working with local tribes to protect historical, cultural and archaeological sites, and the final issue applies to policies with waste water and weak foundation soil. James J. Nicita, Oregon City, filed a petition for review and argued on behalf of intervenor-petitioner Randy Prince. Two other intervenor-petitioners, Steve Jones of Coos Bay, and Jody McCaffree of North Bend, represented themselves. There was no appearance by Coos Bay. Jordan Cove Energy Project (JCEP), was represented by Roger Alfred as intervenor-respondent. Alfred has previously argued for Skippanon Natural Gas when a group (including Columbia River Keepers out of Hood River and locals Peter Huhtala and Bob Goldberg) challenged the City of Warrenton’s land use decision in siting that LNG facility. Alfred won on all points in that case and the City of Warrenton’s land use decision was affirmed. SOPIP’s first “assignment of error” was that the county erred in the way it applied Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan (CBEMP) Policy 17 and in doing so failed to provide needed protection to Henderson Marsh, which lies to the west of the proposed facility and qualifies as a major marsh. SOPIP also argues that the county failed to protect certain onsite freshwater wetlands, as required by CBEMP Policy 17. SOPIP contends the county erred by simply assuming “that the 50-foot setback for maintenance of riparian vegetation, required by [LDO] 4.5.180, including the six exceptions recognized in [LDO] 4.5.180(1)(a)-(f), will be sufficient to protect the shoreland values of Henderson Marsh.” LUBA explained why it did not agree with SOPIP’s first argument. “we do not understand the county to have interpreted CBEMP Policy 17 to be fully implemented by LDO 4.5.180. We understand the county to have found that CBEMP Policy 17 is satisfied in this case because there will be no LNG facility development or related fill in the major marsh itself.” LUBA goes on to state, “There is simply nothing in the text of CBEMP Policy 17 that suggests it is to be implemented by limiting uses on properties that adjoin or are located near inventoried major marshes or significant wildlife habitat to avoid possible impacts on such marshes and habitat.” LUBA added, “Certainly there is nothing in the text of CBEMP Policy 17 that requires the more expansive interpretation that SOPIP favors.” SOPIP’s next argument regarded Coos County’s reliance on certain maps was upheld by LUBA and remanded back to the county to be resolved, “On remand, if the CBEMP inventory maps exist, the county must use them. If the CBEMP inventory maps have been lost or destroyed, the county can assess its legal options for responding to that reality. As it stands, the county’s explanation for relying on JCEP’s wetland delineation is not adequately explained.” LUBA also remanded, in part, another decision upholding SOPIP’s argument. “On remand, the county will be required to locate wetlands on the subject property in the manner dictated by CBEMP Policy 17. However, once the county does that, we reject SOPIP’s contention that barring development from the wetlands and imposing the setback required by LDO 4.5.180 is not sufficient to ensure compliance with CBEMP Policy 17 with regard to wetlands.” SOPIP’s second assignment of error concerned CBEMP Policy 18, entitled Protection of Historical, Cultural and Archaeological Sites ““Local government shall provide protection to historical, cultural and archaeological sites and shall continue to refrain from widespread dissemination of site-specific information about identified archaeological sites.” CBEMP Policy 18 requires that the county protect “historical, cultural and archaeological sites” and “refrain from widespread dissemination of site-specific information about identified archaeological sites.” Under paragraph I of CBEMP Policy 18, those requirements are implemented by “review of all development proposals” to ensure they meet those requirements. Paragraphs II and III set out a multi-step process that dictates several requirements of the applicant and calls for certain specified actions by the county. The county provided, in part, the following finding: “As explained in the hearings officer’s decision, several tribal representatives also appeared at the public hearing and expressed concerns regarding the county’s ability to ensure that the applicant will adequately identify and protect historical, cultural and archeological sites. The applicant’s submittal of the resource survey to SHPO [State Historic Preservation Office] and coordination with the Tribes was undertaken as part of FERC’s [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s] requirement to comply with the federal Historic Preservation Act.” SOPIP argued the county erred by not requiring the applicant to submit the kind of application that is described in LDO 5.6.500 and by not conducting the type of review that is required under LDO Article 5.6. However, according to LUBA, this issue had not been raised previously to the county commission and therefore could not be raised in an appeal and therefore wasn’t considered by LUBA. In another argument SOPIP contended “the challenged decision fails to comply with CBEMP Policy #18 because it (1) does not resolve the disagreement between JCEP and the Confederated Tribes regarding appropriate measures to protect the site, and (2) fails to adopt measures necessary to protect the historic, cultural and archaeological values of the site.” LUBA agreed with SOPIP and in remanding it back to the county stated that it was open the possibility that the county might interpret LDO 3.2.700 to fully implement CBEMP Policy 18 because all development subject to CBEMP Policy 18 will require a zoning compliance letter and the decision making required by Paragraph III of CBEMP Policy 18, including any required “administrative review” and “quasi-judicial hearing” will occur under LDO 3.2.700(4). But any attempt to defer the quasi-judicial hearing and necessary decision making that may be required to resolve disputes between the tribes and the applicant to a point in time after the conditional use approval is granted, must ensure that the required decision making and quasi-judicial hearing will be provided later before the proposed development can commence. SOPIP’s third assignment of error was:“The challenged decision misconstrues the applicable law because it approves the proposed LNG import terminal as an ‘Industrial & Port facility’ without providing that the approval will take effect only if the other elements integral to the function of the proposed LNG facility, namely a marine terminal and a natural gas pipeline or other means of distributing the regasified natural gas product, are approved as well.” SOPIP argued that approval of the LNG facility must be conditioned on approval of the marine dock facility to constitute an Industrial and Port Facility, within the meaning of LDO 2.1.200. “INDUSTRIAL (USES) AND PORT FACILITIES: Public or private use of land or structures for manufacturing, processing, port development, and energy generating facilities. Industrial and Port Facilities include large commercial and industrial docks.” LUBA sided with the respondent-intervener, JCEP, stating, “…that no particular magic words are required and condition 1 is sufficient to condition the county’s approval of the LNG facility on approval of the marine dock facility.” SOPIP also argues that the challenged decision must be conditioned on approval of the pipe line that will be needed to transmit natural gas from the LNG facility to market. JCEP responds: “Practicalities aside, SOPIP makes no meaningful attempt to explain why the lack of a condition requiring approval of a natural gas pipeline renders the LNG terminal something other than an ‘Industrial and Port Facility’ under the definition of that use category.” LUBA agreed with JCEP. Under the first assignment of error, Prince argued that the subject property is located in a tsunami inundation zone and that the county erred by failing to adequately address the tsunami danger. Prince argues that CCCP Section 5.11(1) obligates the county to adopt land use regulations to protect development from ocean flooding, which includes tsunamis. The county’s floodmaps do not identify the subject property as subject to tsunami risks, but Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries maps do indicate that the subject property is in a tsunami inundation zone. It is undisputed that while the county has adopted land use regulations regarding some types of ocean flooding, the county has not adopted regulations that specifically address tsunami dangers. Prince argues that this failure on the county’s part results in a plan/land use regulation conflict such that the disputed conditional use application must be denied to avoid approving a development that conflicts with the comprehensive plan by allowing development in an area that is subject to tsunami inundation. LUBA found two problems with Prince’s argument under this subassignment of error. JCEP argues that Prince did not raise any issue concerning CCCP Section 5.11(1) and for that reason the issue presented in the first subassignment of error has been waived. However, LUBA stated, even if the issue had not been waived, this subassignment of error fails on the merits because it relies on CCCP Section 5.11(1), which does not apply within the Coos Bay Estuary. Prince next argued that the challenged decision must be remanded, because it violates amendments to Goal 7 that took effect on June 1, 2002. Goal 7 reads: “To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.“Developments subject to damage or that could result in loss of life shall not be planned nor located in known areas of natural disasters and hazards without appropriate safeguards. Plans shall be based on an inventory of known areas of natural disaster and hazards. “Areas of Natural Disasters and Hazards – are areas that are subject to natural events that are known to result in death or endanger the works of man, such as 10 stream flooding, ocean flooding, ground water, erosion and deposition, landslides, earthquakes, weak foundation soils and other hazards unique to local or regional areas” (emphases added by LUBA.) Prince to argue that under ORS 197.646(4), Goal 7 applies directly to the county and the county was obligated to address tsunami risk in the challenged decision or to deny the application until the county proceeds to amend its comprehensive plan to comply with the 2002 version of Goal 7. According to Prince, the consequence for this failure is specified in ORS 197.646(4) and the 2002 Goal 7 amendments apply directly to the county. JCEP responds that DLCD has not given the notice that is required by subsection (3) of ORS 197.646 and that the 2002 version of Goal 7 therefore does not apply directly to the county under ORS 197.646(4). LUBA concluded the 2002 version of Goal 7 itself requires notice from DLCD before the county is required to engage in the planning that is dictated by the 2002 version of Goal 7. It was undisputed that DLCD had not given Coos County notice under Section C of the 2002 version of Goal 7. In a November 16, 2000 memorandum to LCDC the director explained: “Costs to local governments will be limited because the revised goal will only apply when the department notifies local governments that new hazard inventory information is available. It is anticipated that such notice will occur once a year. The amount of hazard information that is generated in a year by state and federal agencies is limited.” Given that there is no dispute that DLCD has not provided the notice to the county that is required by Section C of the 2002 version of Goal 7, the 2002 version of Goal 7 does not yet apply to the county and Prince’s arguments under this subassignment of error provide no basis for reversal or remand. Under his second assignment of error, Prince argued the county should have considered comprehensive plan criteria in addition to those it identified in its notice of hearing. Specifically, Prince again argues the county should have applied CCCP Section 5.11 and addressed earthquake dangers. Prince also argues the county should have applied two CBEMP Policies. One of those policies is CBEMP Policy 25, which concerns “Waste/Storm Water Discharge.” The other policy is CBEMP Policy 48, which concerns “Weak Foundation Soils.” LUBA understood JCEP to take the position that LDO 4.5.276 made it clear that CBEMP Policies that are not mentioned in “General Conditions” and “Special Conditions” are inapplicable. JCEP also cited LDO 4.5.150 in support of its position that only those CBEMP Policies that are mentioned in the LDO 4.5.276 “General Conditions” and “Special Conditions” apply within the 6-WD zoning district. LUBA, however, was not able to locate language in LDO 4.5.276 that clearly stated that all CBEMP Policies that are not listed in the applicable CBEMP zoning district “General Conditions” and “Special Conditions” necessarily are inapplicable within those zoning districts, and JCEP didn’t identify the language in LDO 4.5.276 that it relied on. In its decision, the Board of County Commissioners simply stated “[c]ertain CBEMP policies are made applicable through the special and general conditions required for the proposed use and activity in the 6-WD zoning district under ZLDO 4.5.276.” LUBA declared that is not an adequate explanation for why other CBEMP Policies that are not specifically mentioned in the special and general conditions could not apply if the substance of those policies warrants application. Given the lack of a more adequate interpretation on the part of the county, based on the arguments that have been presented in this appeal, LUBA was unable to agree with JCEP that LDO 4.5.276 and 4.5.150, in and of themselves, render any CBEMP Policies that are not mentioned in the 6-WD zoning district inapplicable to development within that zoning district. LUBA said that the county could take up this question on remand if it interpreted LDO 4.5.276 and 4.5.150 in the same way that JCEP interpreted them, and if the county more adequately explains that interpretation. LUBA remanded county’s decision. Local News 2008-07-19T20:00:00-08:00 http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/the_gorge_games_july_17_20_to_be_shown_on_fox/ http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/the_gorge_games_july_17_20_to_be_shown_on_fox/#When:03:51:00Z Hood River, Or - The Gorge Games began in 1994 and has a history of being one of the most dynamic, exciting action and outdoor sports events in the Pacific Northwest . The Gorge Games attracts world class athletes to spectacular, world class sites in the scenic Columbia Gorge. No other place on earth offers wild rivers, pristine forest, craggy mountain peaks and the challenges of the Columbia Gorge itself -- along with unparalleled conditions for incredible action sports all in one location.Events are scheduled from Cascade Locks to the Dalles on both the Washington and Oregon sides of the Columbia River. Hood River, Or - The Gorge Games began in 1994 and has a history of being one of the most dynamic, exciting action and outdoor sports events in the Pacific Northwest . The Gorge Games attracts world class athletes to spectacular, world class sites in the scenic Columbia Gorge. No other place on earth offers wild rivers, pristine forest, craggy mountain peaks and the challenges of the Columbia Gorge itself -- along with unparalleled conditions for incredible action sports all in one location.Events are scheduled from Cascade Locks on both the Washington and Oregon sides of the Columbia River. The Gorge Games have grown over the past several years, becoming a premier outlet for athletes in 10 sports categories. The events include adventure racing, kayaking, kiteboarding, mountain biking, outrigger canoeing, riverboarding, running, sailing, skateboarding, and windsurfing. The games take place July 17 through July 20. The broadcasts take place Aug. 18 through Aug. 22 and will be broadcast on the 23 regional Fox Sports Networks nationwide, said Joshua Ryan, CEO and co-founder of Gorge Games, LLC. The Gorge Games is committed to sustainability in many forms. "Sustainability means being an event that is solvent and understands that Gorge Games are a community event first.” according to Suzanne Wright, Sustainability Director. “Gorge Games wants to be a great steward within the community and it believes fundamentally that taking care of Gorge communities and all their various stakeholders means those communities, will in turn, take care of us,” Wright concluded. Wright added, “It also means the Gorge Games is committed to preserving the unique and pristine natural beauty of the Columbia River Gorge. Gorge Games is a passionate steward in this area,” she concluded. The Gorge Games’ sustainability commitment also acknowledges that they are a work in progress. For the inaugural Gorge Games, implementation of as many possible green practices will be employed. Gorge Games believes there is much more an event can accomplish as a “green” event. “Gorge Games is committed to principles of sustainability,” commented Joshua Ryan, CEO and Co-Founder of Gorge Games, LLC. “We realized there was an opportunity to weave sustainability programming and logistical infrastructure from the earliest planning stages. To retain management staff dedicated to sustainability for a relatively new event is significant in itself. I think people will be amazed at the level of commitment we have to sustainability and how we’re changing the ways events do business at every level,” Ryan concluded. The Gorge Games will feature more than 40 different competitive categories among the 10 sports including men, women, junior and master classifications. Several of these events are located in pristine Oregon wilderness and the Gorge Games is working hard to preserve our natural habitat and minimize the impact of the event on local communities. Sports 2008-07-19T03:51:00-08:00 http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/seven_day_forecast_for_july_19_25/ http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/seven_day_forecast_for_july_19_25/#When:03:41:00Z Week starts out overcast but progresses to partly sunny and a chance of temperatures in the 70s by week's end. Tonight: Patchy fog after 11pm. Otherwise, cloudy, with a low around 51. Northwest wind between 3 and 10 mph. Saturday: Patchy fog before 10am. Otherwise, cloudy through mid morning, then gradual clearing, with a high near 67. Light wind becoming west northwest between 11 and 14 mph. Saturday Night: Increasing clouds, with a low around 52. West northwest wind between 5 and 14 mph. Sunday: Cloudy through mid morning, then gradual clearing, with a high near 70. West northwest wind between 5 and 13 mph. Sunday Night: Patchy fog after 11pm. Otherwise, mostly cloudy, with a low around 52. Northwest wind between 7 and 13 mph. Monday: Patchy fog before 11am. Otherwise, partly sunny, with a high near 69. Monday Night: Mostly cloudy, with a low around 53. Tuesday: Partly sunny, with a high near 68. Tuesday Night: Mostly cloudy, with a low around 51. Wednesday: Partly sunny, with a high near 67. Wednesday Night: Mostly cloudy, with a low around 51. Thursday: Partly sunny, with a high near 65. Thursday Night: Mostly cloudy, with a low around 51. Friday: Partly sunny, with a high near 70. Weather, Science & Travel 2008-07-19T03:41:00-08:00 http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/business_and_labor_leaders_announce_creation_of_energy_advocacy_coalition/ http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/business_and_labor_leaders_announce_creation_of_energy_advocacy_coalition/#When:02:24:00Z (Portland, Oregon, July 18, 2008) Citing serious concern for the future of the region’s economy, several business and labor leaders have announced the creation of Energy Action Northwest, a coalition that will advocate for clean, affordable and reliable energy supplies for the Pacific Northwest. Edward Finklea, a Portland attorney who has an extensive background in energy issues and policy development, has been appointed as Executive Director of Energy Action Northwest, which will maintain offices in Portland. “It is imperative to marshal both business and labor resources to the task of securing a strong economic future for our region,” stated Finklea. “This week’s announcement of such staggering rate increases by our three natural gas utilities is a dramatic signal that, until we develop a coherent and balanced approach to energy policy, our economic future is at risk,” he continued. (Portland, Oregon, July 18, 2008) Citing serious concern for the future of the region’s economy, several business and labor leaders have announced the creation of Energy Action Northwest, a coalition that will advocate for clean, affordable and reliable energy supplies for the Pacific Northwest. Edward Finklea, a Portland attorney who has an extensive background in energy issues and policy development, has been appointed as Executive Director of Energy Action Northwest, which will maintain offices in Portland. “It is imperative to marshal both business and labor resources to the task of securing a strong economic future for our region,” stated Finklea. “This week’s announcement of such staggering rate increases by our three natural gas utilities is a dramatic signal that, until we develop a coherent and balanced approach to energy policy, our economic future is at risk,” he continued. Energy Action Northwest will rally a broad spectrum of business and labor organizations to advocate balanced energy policies that will secure a strong economy for the region while also protecting the environment. Bruce Martin, Energy and Environmental Manager of Blue Heron Paper Company, will serve as Chairman of the organization’s Board of Directors. “The rapidly rising costs of natural gas and electricity are unprecedented, and are challenging the competitiveness of many companies including ours, making it difficult to prosper,” stated Martin. “We have 250 people working at Blue Heron. The announcement Tuesday that natural gas rates will increase significantly for this winter is not a surprise to us. Every day we work to manage our energy costs and reduce our energy consumption. We use less energy than we did a decade ago, and a year ago, and still our total energy costs have gone up. This is just one more indication of how badly our state and region need more natural gas supplies. We are pleading with our officials to do what it takes to expand access to natural gas as soon as possible,” he concluded. Energy Action Northwest has adopted “The Job Keepers” as its tag line. “In the absence of a balanced energy policy, jobs are at risk...jobs that pay competitive wages and that support avibrant economy,” stated Finklea. “A one-sided focus on environmental protection is a recipe for economic disaster.” “We cannot afford a deadlock between the interests of our economy and those of protecting our environment,” stated Finklea. “It is time to end the unproductive debate that casts economic development in opposition to a clean environment. Rather, it is time to demonstrate that a strong economy and jobs can go hand-in-hand with environmental stewardship. Our central belief is that it is possible to balance the economic ledger with the environmental ledger. Not only is it possible…it is a critical priority,” he concluded. Energy Action Northwest will advocate policies that promote energy efficiency, renewable resource development and new energy infrastructure, including natural gas. It expects to present its views before Congress, as well as with state and local policymakers, the media, and the public at large. According to Finklea, the new organization will complement, not duplicate, the efforts of other pro-economy advocacy groups such as Associated Oregon Industries (AOI), chambers of commerce, existing industrial energy intervenor groups, and industry-specific trade associations. To obtain more information, or to join Energy Action Northwest, the public is invited to visit the organization’s web site at http://www.EnergyActionNW.org. Business 2008-07-19T02:24:00-08:00 http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/our_diminishing_fishing_culture_pt_i/ http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/our_diminishing_fishing_culture_pt_i/#When:02:20:01Z Requiem of an industry? (Part I in a series of articles regarding commercial fishing in the NW) Astoria, Or - The local commercial fishermen, trawlers and gillnetters alike, have experienced a two-fold hit that many contend have driven the industry itself almost to extinction, much like many of the species they have harvested. Brad Pettinger, of the Oregon Trawl Commission, at a recent meeting in Astoria, commented, “We are the most regulated industry in the United States! Most people don’t realize how many regulations fishermen have to abide by in order to fish.” More than a few fishermen would contend that the regulations are stringent solely to get rid of the industry. Pettinger is concerned with the way the industry has been hampered in, with increased regulations, Kulongoski’s recent decision to implement Marine Reserves, Aquaculture operations, and ecologists dire predictions of future fish runs. “I think if you look at the coastal economies. If you took away fishing, what have you got?” Pettinger questioned. Local gillnetters have also voiced concerns. In Columbia River salmon management the argument revolves around sport fishing’s attempt to ban gillnetting. In January 2008 a sport fishing blogger writes, “Gillnetting kills!” Requiem of an industry? (Part I in a series of articles regarding commercial fishing in the NW) Astoria, Or - The local commercial fishermen, trawlers and gillnetters alike, have experienced a two-fold hit that many contend have driven the industry itself almost to extinction, much like many of the species they have harvested. Brad Pettinger, of the Oregon Trawl Commission, at a recent meeting in Astoria, commented, “We are the most regulated industry in the United States! Most people don’t realize how many regulations fishermen have to abide by in order to fish.” More than a few fishermen would contend that the regulations are stringent solely to get rid of the industry. Pettinger is concerned with the way the industry has been hampered in, with increased regulations, Kulongoski’s recent decision regarding marine reserves, Aquaculture operations, and ecologists dire predictions of future fish runs. “I think if you look at the coastal economies. If you took away fishing, what have you got?” Pettinger questioned. Local gillnetters have also voiced concerns. In Columbia River salmon management the argument revolves around sport fishing’s attempt to ban gillnetting. In January 2008 a sport fishing blogger writes, “Gillnetting kills!” He then goes on to state that only sport fishing should be allowed from the I-5 bridge to the mouth of the Columbia River. Many sport fishermen agree that commercial fishermen have caused the decline in fish populations and support a moratorium on all commercial fishing. Yet, commercial fishermen counter it is the sport fishery that goes over their allotment of fish. Sport fishermen between Tongue Point near Astoria and Bonneville Dam got an eight-day summer chinook season, which was calculated to be the amount of time it would take them to catch 1,200 salmon. However, while the catch average was as expected the fishing effort was greater than anticipated and the lower Columbia catch is estimated to be about 2,000 chinook. On the other hand, the fishing was even better than anticipated upstream of the Bonneville Dam and a catch of 500 was projected with the actual harvest being more like 700. It turns out the total sport catch will be about 2,700 rather than the anticipated 1,700. The tribes vented first at June’s Columbia River Compact with the Yakama’s Terry Goudy-Rambler telling Oregon and Washington officials how she was disappointed in their poor control of the sport fishery. Sharing the tribal concern was Gary Soderstrom, president of the Astoria based gillnetter’s association, the Columbia River Fisheries Protective Union. In disgust Soderstrom suggested that sport fishermen were getting so efficient they should have the same on board monitoring that is imposed on the commercial fishermen. The Northwest Gillnetters Association’s Les Clark added that he felt that the sport fishery “seemed to be getting out of hand.” While the argument over who or what is to blame for diminished fish runs rages, fishermen contend that over regulation of their industry and under regulation of a sport is unfair. “The over regulation of the fishing industry has done one thing,” states Joe Tarabochia, a fifth generation fisherman on the Columbia, “provided a steady income for a lot of bureaucrats.” He is not alone in his contention on wasted funds. Bruce Lovelin, the former president of an industry group that lobbied to keep the dams recently stated in a June interview that the government spends a bundle on a system involving eight different federal agencies. That doesn't begin to account for all the local government workers, private consultants and university fish scientists who inspect, poke, and measure. It has come to be known as the "salmon recovery industry." Asked what the system does with all that money, Lovelin says, "Well, it pays for biologists, Jeeps, computers, bureaucracy, administrative overhead." (Leslie Stahl, CBS News, The Fuss over Fish). In the same article Ed Chaney, a former state wildlife official, who heads Chinook Northwest, an environmental group, stated, “Billions have been wasted and that’s the real tragedy here."Chaney adds. "Not spent to save the salmon” clarifying, "These are 'save the dam' facilities." Locally, fishermen habitually appear in the paper for various offenses. At a recent trial over an alleged application violation a Washington State game officer testified that he stops all vehicles that are towing boats that appear to have just been in the water to see if there are any violations. “That just isn’t true,” counters Tarabochia. “No sports fishermen would stand for it, to be pulled over on the suspicion that they had done something illegal merely because they were towing a wet boat.” Yet, in both Washington and Oregon all commercial fishermen must agree to be searched at any time whether fishing or not fishing. According to the Wahkiakum prosecutor’s office, Jerry Wetle deputy prosecuting attorney under Dan Bigelow, commercial fishermen give up their constitutional rights to unlawful search and seizure when they sign for their commercial fishing license. However, a close look at Oregon’s and Washington’s commercial fishing license applications there isn’t any language indicating an abdication of certain rights. Where a commercial license for a bed and breakfast, for instance, specifically states, “Application is hereby made to operate the above establishment in compliance with the provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 624, and the Administrative Rules of the Department of Human Services pursuant thereto.” With further language stating that, “failure to meet the requirements of the Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 624, and the Department of Human Services requires denial or revocation of the license.” No such language exists in the commercial fishermen’s application. A recent case that is now before a judge in Astoria concerns the commercial application itself. Under debate is the top of the form where it asks for an address of the applicant and the bottom of the form which contains the only legal wording on the one page application, “I hereby certify that I have resided in the state of Oregon for at least one year prior to application.” Trygve Klepp, The Oregon Fish and Wildlife agent who wrote the ticket, stated in court that the application meant that the fisherman applying had to put the location at which they were currently living, not merely a mailing address which the Tarabochias had done. Also, Klepp testified, that the line where they signed implied that they had lived in Oregon the year before the license was being applied for, not just any year prior to applying for the license. “What I don’t understand,” commented Tarabochia, who had been charged with the violation, “is that the state didn’t make its case. The judge basically said I had to prove my innocence because the state had created enough doubt! The state’s job isn’t to create doubt, it’s to prove that the person had criminal intent beyond a shadow of a doubt.” Tarabochia said that a lawyer told him if you fish and a cop charges you a judge automatically assumes you are guilty, just pay the fine because you can’t fight it. "I refuse to do that," Tarabochia said, "I didn’t give up my constitutional rights just because I am a fisherman.” Fishermen contend they have a different set of rules to live by in the United States and the Tarabochia case would seem to justify that view point. Joe and Cinnon Tarabochia were divorced in 1991 and per the Washington State Parenting Act of 1987 had a parenting plan for their children. According to the Act the parents could give joint residence to their children, if they both agreed to it and it was in the best interests of the children. Cinnon Tarabochia said that her residence in Skomokawa, Washington, was to be the children’s residence for all things except fishing. Because of ongoing harassment by the Washington Fish and Wildlife agents she didn’t wish her home to be used as the primary residence while her three sons were being taught to be fishermen. Joe Tarabochia has lived in Astoria, Oregon, since 2003 which his driver’s license reflects. His sons’ fishing licenses’ reflect his residency in Oregon. The Fish and Wildlife departments in both states don’t agree to dual residency for children. The Tarabochia family had first been charged with criminal charges alleging that because they had allegedly lied on the applications they were guilty of stealing resources from the state of Oregon. The criminal charges were later dropped but Trygve Klepp, for Oregon Fish and Wildlife, pursued the charges on the ticket. Because there were no longer criminal charges associated with the ticket the Tarabochias lost their court appointed attorneys and had to represent themselves in court. “These charges go back two years to 2006,” stated the mother, “and after Trooper Klepp wrote the ticket in July he waited to mail it until the end of November! I don’t understand how agents can just go through personal files looking for something to charge fishermen with. The Columbia River is a shared resource, the fishing enforcement agencies from both states cooperate and either one can write a ticket to a fisherman on the river. During the trial, even though no other witnesses got to sit up at the front tables, the Washington Fish and Wildlife agent sat right next to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife agent and helped him present the case against my sons! If they are helping each other and sharing their resources how can one state charge the residents of another state more money?” It would appear that the question has been asked and answered in Toomer et al. v. Witsell et al, as well as Article IV section 2 of the United States constitution, both of which the Tarabochia boys are presenting in the summation that the judge asked them to write out and mail to her. In the first case a group of Georgia trawlers were charged with fishing off the coast of South Carolina and not paying non-resident fees. The trawlers contended that because the Atlantic Ocean was a shared waterway South Carolina didn’t have the right to charge them the higher non-resident fees. The US Supreme Court agreed with the trawlers and, even more importantly, the Court ruled, “It is also clear that compliance with any but the income tax statute would have required payment of large sums of money for which South Carolina provides no means of recovery, that defiance would have carried with it the risk of heavy fines and long imprisonment, and that withdrawal from further fishing until a test case had been taken through the South Carolina courts and perhaps to this Court would have resulted in a substantial loss of business for which no compensation could be obtained. Except as to the income tax statute, we conclude that appellants sufficiently showed the imminence of irreparable injury for which there was no plain, adequate and complete remedy at law.” Article IV section 2 of the United States constitution states: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. In the supreme court case sited above it was ruled that: The primary purpose of this clause, like the clauses between which it is located-those relating to full faith and credit and to interstate extradition of fugitives from justice-was to help fuse into one Nation a collection of independent, sovereign States. It was designed to insure to a citizen of State A who ventures into State B the same privileges which the citizens of State B enjoy. For protection of such equality the citizen of State A was not to be restricted to the uncertain remedies afforded by diplomatic processes and official retaliation. [334 U.S. 385 , 396] 'Indeed, without some provision of the kind removing from the citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in the other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists. Paul v. Virginia, 1868, 8 Wall. 168, 180. The importance of this ruling cannot be overlooked, as another law has recently been added to hamper the gillnetters’ efforts to sell their fish, as will be discussed in the next article. Further clarification has been stated in Oregon’s own statutes 508.460 Oregon-Washington reciprocity on gillnet licenses stating: All gillnet licenses issued by the States of Oregon and Washington are valid as to the waters of the Columbia River in Oregon and Washington, as though issued by the department of fisheries of either state. And yet, fishermen in both states have been charged with violations stemming from crossing state lines. “Can you imagine if a logger was charged with crossing a state line to sell his logs how ridiculous that would sound? Logging companies would lobby congress to get such a law repealed, however, in the case of the fishing industry such laws do not even go before state legislature. The director of the state fish and wildlife in Washington and Oregon has the power to mandate fishing regulations, with no oversight,” stated Tarabochia. “I don’t understand how a judge can even take this seriously. Children being charged with illegal residency when one state expressly allows children to have dual residency [with each parent] and another state refusing to acknowledge that residency. It just doesn’t make sense.” Judge Matyas in Clatsop County Circuit court will be making a ruling on the case sometime at the end of the month. The trawling fleet along the Pacific coast has finally decided to take matters into their own hands. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has recently voted to implement a new Canadian-style quota system that could save the West Coast trawl fleet. In both Canada and Alaska quota systems have halted the frantic fishing that occurs when government restricts when, where and how much fleets can fish. This style of fishing has led to many deaths and fishing being called the most dangerous industry with a mortality rate, according to Reuters’ study from 2000-2006, nearly 60 times higher than the overall U.S. occupational fatality level. Fishermen off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California have double the nationwide fishing fatality rate with an annual average of 238 dying per 100,000 fishermen. The average annual occupational fatality rate among all U.S. workers during the same period was four deaths per 100,000 workers according to Reuters. William Hogarth, director of fisheries at the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, which oversees the PMFC, praised the vote to create a committee to draw up plans for a quota system for all groundfish in 2003. At its June 2008 meeting, the PMFC took a major step toward implementing trawl rationalization, adopting a preliminary preferred alternative that includes both individual fishing quotas (IFQs) and co-ops. A preliminary draft environmental impact statement (EIS) describing all the alternatives will be released in September. Hearings on rationalization will be held in late October, prior to PMCF’s final action in November to adopt a final preferred alternative. In 2008, all ocean going fishing vessels were required to use depth-based management for commercial and recreational groundfish fishing in order to avoid harvest of overfished groundfish species. According to the PFMC website this means that fishing is allowed or disallowed in certain depth zones. Depth-based management can be difficult to enforce with limited at-sea patrolling capabilities. In order to address this problem, managers are implementing “vessel monitoring systems,” or VMS. While VMS creates additional costs and responsibilities for both managers and fishermen, it supposedly allows more fishing than would otherwise be possible using current enforcement tools. While the trawlers have taken on the burden of self-regulation the gillnetters don’t feel they have the same options. Many of them contend that the bureaucracy involved would lose too much money if gillnetters tried the same thing. Some state that infighting amongst gillnetters is too deep to allow for an united effort to become self-regulated. Other organized gillnetting associations show that unification has enabled, to a certain degree, fishermen to get help from local government in approaching state legislation with their concerns of the fleet being destroyed, not because of a scarcity of resources but by the economic burdens associated with over regulation. Local News 2008-07-19T02:20:01-08:00 http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/jan_mitchell_replies_to_oregonian_editorial/ http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/jan_mitchell_replies_to_oregonian_editorial/#When:01:12:00Z by Jan Mitchell The language used by The Oregonian in its editorial supporting the Bradwood Landing LNG Project was interesting to say the least. In my view, it created false impressions, offered false choices and may in fact have revealed a too-cozy relationship between the newspaper and the people pushing the LNG development.by Jan Mitchell To the Editorial Board, The language used by The Oregonian in its editorial supporting the Bradwood Landing LNG Project was interesting to say the least. In my view, it created false impressions, offered false choices and may in fact have revealed a too-cozy relationship between the newspaper and the people pushing the LNG development. To begin with, The Oregonian pleaded for "fair treatment" for the project. Implying what? Is there any hint that it has been treated unfairly? By whom? In fact, the Texas speculators behind Bradwood LNG have used large sums of money, legal muscle and experts-for-hire to exert a great deal of control over the process. The paper describes opponents of the Bradwood LNG development as "increasingly strident." Strident means shrill, grating, excessive and harsh. Is that how you see us, the Oregonians who live in the area and believe this charging Goliath will trample a precious and irreplaceable part of Oregon simply to line its own pockets? We have certainly felt like the David in this situation. The money we can raise in our small community is a pittance compared to what the Bradwood speculators have been brandishing. They and their collaborators at Northwest Natural have the staff, the lawyers, the influence and apparently the ear of The Oregonian editorial board. No editorial board member has ever discussed the issue with any one of us. What we have in abundance is community support and determination to protect this beautiful, thriving natural home of ours. With two LNG developments proposed here, there have been many, many public meetings. We all attend, again and again, so that absence will not be taken for acquiescence. More than two-thirds of the people who testify oppose the projects. Most of those who do speak in favor are not from here. And many are the same people or organizations who spoke several years ago in support of the ship-breaking scheme that was proposed for Tongue Point. That ecologically odious project waved the same banners as Bradwood - promises of big jobs and big tax revenues. And like Bradwood it was motivated by plans for a huge payoff for people we'd never heard of before or since. I missed any acknowledgement in your editorial of the conclusion by the Oregon Department of Energy that LNG is not the right way to meet Oregon's energy needs. The state's energy experts maintain that natural gas from the Rockies will be cheaper and cleaner. I missed any mention of the gaping flaws in FERC's environmental impact assessment which shrugs at all the work that has been done and all the public money than has been spent to restore and protect the Columbia River Estuary and its habitat. I missed any concern that increasing our dependence on foreign fossil fuels will bleed away still more of our national treasure and make our country less secure and less able to deal with crisis. It's no secret that much of this LNG comes from the very same places that are gorging now on the money we pay for oil. Who would you prefer to have in charge of our energy future? Algeria? Qatar? Brunei? Libya? Oman? The United Arab Emirates? Abu Dhabi? Russia? Iran? I missed any evidence behind your offhanded dismissal of the potential of conservation and renewable energy sources. I don't recall any in depth analysis in the Oregonian of this country's present and future energy needs and the relative merits of different approaches. Frankly, I think you pulled this assertion out of your hat. We have had plenty of opportunity during this struggle to read the brochures and ads produced by the Bradwood forces. I was truly disappointed in The Oregonian for how closely your editorial followed the talking points in these flack pieces. Jan Mitchell Astoria Opinion 2008-07-19T01:12:00-08:00 http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/jewells_school_board_member_pays_for_own_recall/ http://www.northcoastoregon.com/articles/jewells_school_board_member_pays_for_own_recall/#When:23:24:00Z Recalled Jewell school board member Ann Samuelson paid the costs of the recall challenge that took her seat on the board away from her. "I don't think it's fair that this recall be paid for by the Jewell School District out of funds meant for the kids. I said I would pay for the recall and I did." Samuelson said she won't be taking a back seat when it comes to helping the children of Jewell. She was unanimously reappointed to the regional Northwest ESD board shortly after the Jewell recall took place. "I intend to continue helping our kids get the best education possible, that has always been my priority and will continue to be my first priority." Recalled Jewell school board member Ann Samuelson paid the costs of the recall challenge that took her seat on the board away from her. "I don't think it's fair that this recall be paid ffor by the Jewell School District out of funds meant for the kids. I said I would pay for the recall and I did." Samuelson said she won't be taking a back seat when it comes to helping the children of Jewell. She was unanimously reappointed to the regional Northwest ESD board shortly after the Jewell recall took place. "I intend to continue helping our kids get the best education possible, that has always been my priority and will continue to be my priority." George Finch, Coordinator of Professional Practices with Oregon's Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC), stated on July 16, 2008, that the Commission had sent notices of opportunity for hearing to both John and Laura Seeley. Finch stated that, "To date the we have not received requests for hearings from either, but there is still time within which they may request a hearing." On May 16, 2008 the Commission considered reports regarding John and Laura Seeley. The Commission voted to charge both with violations of standards after they were indicted by the Clatsop County District Attorney for child abuse. The charges against Laura Seeley were dropped on the condition that John Seeley take part in a plea bargain. Seeley is currently on probation for a charge of Criminal Mistreatment in the First Degree involving his adopted daughter. If he completes the probation the charge will be dismissed. Samuelson played a lead part in bringing about Seeley's dismissal as Superintendent-Principle of the small rural school district and was a target of anger by people who had written letters of support for Seeley when he was first arrested. Local News 2008-07-18T23:24:00-08:00