Post on 10-Oct-2015
description
5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
1/12
Page 1 - REQUEST FOR HEARING SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.Attorneys at LawPacwest Center
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
PDX\123728\182016\MAN\14437755.7
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS
In re COYOTE ISLAND TERMINAL
Application No. 49123-RF
REQUEST FOR HEARING
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to ORS 196.825(7), ORS 196.835 and OAR 141-085-0575, Applicant Coyote
Island Terminal, LLC (Coyote Island Terminal or Applicant) hereby requests a hearing on
the State of Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) denial of Removal-Fill Application
No. 49123-RF (Application). DSL issued its Findings and Order denying the Application on
August 18, 2014.
In its Application, Coyote Island Terminal proposes to place pilings in the Columbia
River to construct a new barge-loading dock at the Port of Morrow near Boardman, Oregon.
Coyote Island Terminal seeks to use the dock to load a bulk commodity into barges for shipment
overseas. Because that bulk commodity is coal, it is a process that the State of Oregon does not
support politically.1 Instead of fairly evaluating Coyote Island Terminals application, DSL
chose to base its decision on factors that far exceed the scope of analysis DSL has previously
engaged in, improperly elevating special interests above long-standing, statutorily preferred Port
industrial uses. In doing so, DSL exceeded its lawful authority while ignoring its legal
obligations. The decision must be reversed.
Coyote Island Terminals proposed dock would be situated within the Port of Morrow in
an area with eight other existing docks, all of which have long served the primary purpose of port
1See Oregonian Article, April 25, 2014:
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/04/oregon_gov_john_kitzhaber_firm.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/04/oregon_gov_john_kitzhaber_firm.htmlhttp://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/04/oregon_gov_john_kitzhaber_firm.htmlhttp://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/04/oregon_gov_john_kitzhaber_firm.html5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
2/12
Page 2 - REQUEST FOR HEARING SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.Attorneys at LawPacwest Center
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
PDX\123728\182016\MAN\14437755.7
industrial navigation on the Columbia River. In its decision, DSL found, among other things,
that the dock would unreasonably interfere with tribal fishing at the proposed dock site and that
Coyote Island Terminal did not provide a robust enough analysis of alternatives to dock
construction.
The record is clear regarding fishing at the proposed dock site. Several tug boat captains
and community members with significant experience in the area have stated that they have never
observed tribal fishing in the area of the proposed dock. The dock is slated to be constructed in
an area specifically set aside by the United States Army Corps of Engineers for port industrial
development, is consistent with local land uses, and will be similar to the several other docks
already located within that area. Coyote Island Terminal has demonstrated that the construction
of the dock is necessary for its operations, would provide a considerable benefit to local
communities, and is the best use of water resources in the area. Coyote Island Terminal is
entitled to a permit.
Coyote Island Terminal respectfully requests that within 30 days you refer this matter to
the Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested case hearing pursuant to ORS 196.825(7),
ORS 196.835 and OAR 141-085-0575.
II. REASONS FOR HEARING
Pursuant to OAR 141-085-0575(1), Coyote Island Terminal submits the following
reasons for the request for hearing:
A. OVER-ARCHING REASONS AND LEGAL ISSUES
1. DSL failed to apply its rules consistently to Coyote IslandTerminals Application in violation of OAR 141-085-0506(2).
2. DSL failed to act consistently with its past practice in processingother similar applications. See ORS183.482(8).
3. DSL erroneously interpreted and applied its statutes and rules inthe decision.
5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
3/12
Page 3 - REQUEST FOR HEARING SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.Attorneys at LawPacwest Center
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
PDX\123728\182016\MAN\14437755.7
4. The DSL decision is based on considerations outside the scope ofstatutory and rule requirements.
5. DSLs decision is based on general, conclusory findings that are
not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
6. The decision violates the Commerce Clause of the United StatesConstitution by impermissibly restricting interstate commerce.
B. REASON/ISSUES RELATED TO DSLCONSIDERATIONS (ORS196.825(3);
OAR141-085-0565(4))
1. DSL erred in finding that the social, economic or other publicbenefits likely to result from the proposed fill or removal do not
support issuance of a permit. Coyote Island Terminal has
demonstrated that there will be significant social, economic, andpublic benefit from the proposed fill or removal; DSL ignored
evidence in the record to demonstrate the public benefits, gave
undue weight to public comments opposing coal; and had no
factual basis for its findings related to fishing.Sub-reasons may include, but are not limited to:
a. DSL erred in considering evidence of social, economic andpublic impacts likely to result from the proposed fill
because the statute directs DSL to consider public benefits.
b. DSL erred in considering evidence of social, economic andpublic impacts likely to result from the proposed fill andthe project it facilitatesbecause the rule limits DSLs
consideration to the social, economic and public benefits of
the fill.
c. DSL erred in finding that the proposed fill will not directlymeet a public need; Coyote Island Terminal hasdemonstrated that the fill will directly meet the public need
for jobs and economic development in Morrow County and
across the state.
d. DSL erred in finding that there is a low public need for theproposed fill; Coyote Island Terminal has demonstratedthat there is a significant public need for jobs and economic
development in Morrow County and across the state.
e. DSL erred in finding that evidence regarding social,economic and other benefits (except fisheries) is
5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
4/12
Page 4 - REQUEST FOR HEARING SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.Attorneys at LawPacwest Center
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
PDX\123728\182016\MAN\14437755.7
inconclusive; Coyote Island Terminal has demonstrated
that there will be significant social, economic, and public
benefit from the proposed fill.
f. DSL erred in finding that the preponderance of theevidence demonstrates that there is a small but importantlong-standing fishery at the project site, which is itself a
social, economic and other benefit to the public. The
Tribal fishery will not be impacted by the proposed fill, andthe Tribes submitted no information regarding the broader
public benefit from fishing at that location.
g. DSL erred in finding that the fishery is more significantthan the public benefits that may be derived from the
proposed fill. The public benefit from the proposed dock
far outweighs any negligible benefit from any fisherylocated at the proposed dock location.
h. DSL erred in failing to consider information submitted bythe Applicant responding to public comments and
demonstrating the social, economic and public benefit ofthe project. Coyote Island Terminal submitted significant
information to DSL, which it did not address in its decision,
and which directly contradicts its findings.
2. DSL erred in finding that there is little, if any, economic cost to
the public if the proposed fill is not accomplished. Coyote IslandTerminal demonstrated that there will be tangible, significant
economic costs to local and state communities if the dock is not
constructed.
3. DSL erred in finding that Coyote Island Terminals alternativesanalysis does not support that the proposed fill is the practicable
alternative with the least impact to waters of this state. Coyote
Island Terminal submitted a robust alternatives analysis whichdemonstrated that the construction of the dock was the practicable
alternative with the least impact to waters of this state.
Sub-reasons may include, but are not limited to:
a. DSL erred in failing to make a finding regarding theavailability of alternatives to the project for which the fillor removal is proposed. DSL did not determine which
alternatives other than the proposed alternative, if any, were
practicable and available to Coyote Island Terminal.
5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
5/12
Page 5 - REQUEST FOR HEARING SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.Attorneys at LawPacwest Center
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
PDX\123728\182016\MAN\14437755.7
b. DSL erred in finding that the Application is inconclusive asto why some alternatives which may have less impact to
waters of the state are not practicable. Coyote IslandTerminal demonstrated that there are no practicable
alternatives which are available to Coyote Island Terminal
and have less impact on waters of the state.
c. DSL erred in applying different standards to Coyote IslandTerminals alternatives analysis than it has to other similarprojects.
4. DSL erred in refusing to make specific findings regarding theavailability of alternative sites for the proposed fill. Coyote Island
Terminal demonstrated that there were no alternatives sites
available for its proposed project.
Sub-reasons may include, but are not limited to:
a. DSL erred in requiring the Applicant to look at alternativesites that did not involve any fill rather than alternative
sites for the proposed fill as required by statute and rule.
5. DSL erred in finding that the proposed fill does not conform tosound policies of conservation and that the record is inconclusiveas to whether the proposed fill would interfere with public health
and safety. Coyote Island has demonstrated that the proposed fill
conforms to sound policies of conservation and would not interfere
with public health and safety.Sub-reasons may include, but are not limited to:
a. DSLs rules limit its consideration of this factor to theproposed fill. DSL erred in considering public comments
regarding impacts that are not directly related to theproposed fill (e.g. impacts from operation of the facility,
train and barge traffic, etc.).
b. DSL erred in finding that the proposed fill would obstructthe alleged fishery at the project area. The record is clear
that there is not a fishery at the project area, and that even ifthere were, the project would not interfere with such uses.
c. Impacts to fishing fall outside the scope of this factor andDSL erred in considering such impacts.
d. DSL erred in failing to consider information submitted bythe Applicant responding to public comments and
5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
6/12
Page 6 - REQUEST FOR HEARING SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.Attorneys at LawPacwest Center
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
PDX\123728\182016\MAN\14437755.7
demonstrating that the project conforms to sound policies
of conservation and will not interfere with public health
and safety. Coyote Island Terminal submitted significantinformation to DSL which it did not address in its decision,
and which directly contradicts its findings.
e. DSLs finding violates the commerce clause of the UnitedStates Constitution by impermissibly restricting interstate
commerce.
6. DSL erred in finding that the proposed fill is not in conformancewith existing public uses of the waters. Coyote Island TerminalsApplication supports the long standing and primary use of the area
for navigation, and demonstrates that the proposed fill will not
interfere with any secondary use of the area for fishing.
Sub-reasons may include, but are not limited to:
a. DSLs rules limit its consideration of this factor to theproposed fill. DSL erred in relying on alleged impacts to
tribal fishing that are not directly related to the proposed fill
(e.g. impacts related to operation of the facility and bargetraffic).
b. DSL erred in failing to consider information submitted bythe Applicant responding to public comments and
demonstrating that the project not only conforms to existing
public uses, but is the best use of the states water resourceswithin the Port of Morrow. Coyote Island Terminal
submitted significant information to DSL which it did not
address in its decision, and which directly contradicts itsfindings.
7. DSL erred in finding that Coyote Island Terminal has not providedall practicable mitigation to reduce the adverse effects of the
proposed fill or removal in the manner set forth in ORS 196.800.Coyote Island Terminal provided a mitigation plan to offset
impacts of the proposed fill, as required under OAR 141-085-
0550(5)(p) and DSL rules, and offered a wide range of mitigationoptions if necessary to offset impacts to fishing uses if DSL wereto Determine fill would have an adverse impact on fishing
Sub-reasons may include, but are not limited to:
5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
7/12
Page 7 - REQUEST FOR HEARING SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.Attorneys at LawPacwest Center
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
PDX\123728\182016\MAN\14437755.7
a. DSL erred in finding that the Application was missing thefinancial assurance document necessary for DSL approval.
Coyote Island Terminal submitted the required financialassurances to DSL.
b. DSL erred in finding that the Application required long-term protection documents prior to DSL approval. Such
assurances cannot be finalized until the permit application
is granted, and should be a permit condition.
c. DSL erred in finding that the Application was missinglong-term protection documents necessary for DSLapproval. Coyote Island Terminal appropriately committed
itself to entering into the necessary long-term protection
agreements once the project was approved and should have
been a permit condition.
d. DSL erred in finding that the Applicant did not propose anyfishery impact mitigation. Coyote Island Terminal
proposed significant fishing mitigation for DSL to consider
and include as permit conditions.
e. DSL erred in finding that it was insufficient for theApplicant to list mitigation measures that it committed to
implement when required for permit issuance. It was
appropriate for Coyote Island Terminal to propose and
commit to several mitigation measures, which DSL couldthen select as it deemed necessary to address any impacts it
found.
C. REASONS/ISSUES RELATED TO DSLDETERMINATIONS (ORS196.825(1))
1. DSL erred in determining that the Application is not consistentwith the protection, conservation and best use of the waterresources of this state as specified in ORS 196.600 to 196.905.
Coyote Island Terminal demonstrated that its application was
consistent with the protection, conservation and best use of the
water resources of this state.Sub-reasons may include, but are not limited to:
a. DSL erred in finding that there is Class I rail service at PortWestward. There is no Class I rail service at Port
Westward.
5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
8/12
Page 8 - REQUEST FOR HEARING SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.Attorneys at LawPacwest Center
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
PDX\123728\182016\MAN\14437755.7
b. DSL erred in finding Coyote Island Terminal did notadequately address the potential for access to Class I rail
service and the potential for construction of a rail loop atPort Westward. Coyote Island appropriately addressed
Class I rail service at Port Westward, and was not required
to address the issue further.
c. DSL erred in finding that Coyote Island Terminalsalternatives analysis did not compare the practicability ofrail directly to Port Westward with the practicability of the
proposed development at the Port of Morrow. Coyote
Island Terminals alternatives analysis discussed allpracticable alternatives, including railing directly to Port
Westward.
d. DSL erred in finding and concluding that the evidencesupporting that there is a fishery at the project site is more
persuasive than the evidence submitted by the applicantregarding fishing at the project site. Coyote Island
Terminal submitted the most detailed, factual, and
complete analysis of fishing at the proposed dock location;the information submitted by the Tribes was insufficient to
demonstrate any impact from the project on Tribal fishing.
e. DSL erred in finding that the Applicant did not commit toany specific action or set of actions related to fishing
mitigation. Coyote Island Terminal proposed andcommitted to several mitigation measures, which DSL
should have adopted as it deemed necessary to address any
alleged impacts it found.
f. DSL erred in finding that the Applicant did not demonstratethat the development of a new barge loading facility is thebest use over the alleged fishing use in the area (and erred
in finding that there is fishing use in the area). The record is
clear that the primary use of navigation far outweighs anysecondary fishing use. Importantly, there is not a fishery at
the project area, and even if there were, the project wouldnot interfere with such uses.
5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
9/12
Page 9 - REQUEST FOR HEARING SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.Attorneys at LawPacwest Center
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
PDX\123728\182016\MAN\14437755.7
g. Fishing is specifically addressed in OAR 141-085-0565(3)(c), and is not part of the water resources which
the state can consider OAR 141-085-0565(3)(b). DSLerred in considering impacts to fishing in making its
determination that the application is not consistent with the
protection, conservation and best use of water resources.
h. DSL erred in failing to consider information submitted bythe Applicant responding to public comments anddemonstrating that the project conforms to sound policies
of conservation and is the best use of the states water
resources within the Port of Morrow. Coyote IslandTerminal submitted significant information to DSL which
DSL did not address in its decision, and which directly
contradicts DSLs findings.
i. DSLs findings violate the Commerce Clause of the UnitedStates Constitution by impermissibly restricting interstatecommerce.
2. DSL erred in determining that the Application would unreasonablyinterfere with the paramount policy of this state to preserve the use
of its waters for navigation, fishing and public recreation.
Sub-reasons may include, but are not limited to:
a. DSLs rule correctly limits application of this factor to
projects located on state-owned lands. DSL erred in makinga determination regarding the projects potential to
unreasonably interfere with the paramount policy of the
state to preserve its waters for navigation, fishing, andpublic recreation because the project is not located on state-
owned lands.
b. DSL erred in finding that the project would unreasonablyinterfere with the alleged fishery in the states waters at theproject site (and erred in finding that there is a fishery in
the area). There is not a fishery at the project area, and even
if there were, the project would not interfere with suchuses.
c. DSL erred in failing to consider information submitted bythe Applicant responding to public comments received
regarding the projects impacts on fishing and its
furtherance of navigation, the primary use of water
5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
10/12
Page 10 - REQUEST FOR HEARING SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.Attorneys at LawPacwest Center
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
PDX\123728\182016\MAN\14437755.7
resources at the Port of Morrow. Coyote Island Terminal
submitted significant information to DSL which it did not
address in its decision, and which directly contradicts itsfindings.
d. DSLs findings violate the Commerce Clause of the UnitedStates Constitution by impermissibly restricting interstate
commerce.
D. OTHER ISSUES OR REASONS FOR THE REQUEST FOR HEARING.
Coyote Island Terminal has attempted in good faith to identify all reasons for the
request for hearing within the 21-day permit appeal period provided by law. Should
additional reasons that were not reasonably apparent become evident during the contested case
proceeding, Coyote Island Terminal reserves the right to request permission to broaden the
scope of this appeal.
Coyote Island Terminal also notes a lack of clarity with respect to the administrative
rules applicable to this request for hearing. Pursuant to the rules in effect at the time the
Application was filed, a request for hearing must state the reasons upon which the hearing is
requested. Under current rules applicable to appeals of permit decisions, the Applicant must
include a specific list of issues, but the requester may amend the request to include additional
issues or clarify existing issues within 15 days of the date that the case is referred to the Office
of Administrative Hearings. CompareOAR 141-085-0575(4) (effective 9/1/14) to OAR 141-
085-0575(1-2) (effective 3/1/11). Each of the above-stated reasons are at the same time
issues for hearing. Regardless of which version of OAR 141-085-0575 applies, Coyote
Island Terminal reserves the right to identify, simplify or clarify issues during the contested
case proceeding in connection with any prehearing conference, or as otherwise may be
allowed by the administrative law judge. See OAR 137-003-0575(4).
For the reasons discussed above, Coyote Island Terminal respectfully requests a contested
case hearing on all issues, as required by law. Without waiving its entitlement to a contested case
5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
11/12
Page 11 - REQUEST FOR HEARING SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.Attorneys at LawPacwest Center
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503.222.9981
PDX\123728\182016\MAN\14437755.7
hearing, Coyote Island Terminal is willingto discuss its concerns and potential non-litigation
alternatives to resolving these concerns directly with DSL.
III.
CONCLUSION
Coyote Island Terminal has requested a permit to construct a dock within the Port of
Morrow, an industrial port which has been in an area set aside by the federal government and the
State of Oregon for port industrial use like that proposed by Coyote Island Terminal. The record
is clear that the area proposed for fill is located in low-quality fish habitat in an area infrequently
used for fishing, and which supports existing port navigation uses on a daily basis. In this
regard, Coyote Island Terminals proposal is exactly like the several other docks which DSL has
approved in existing Port areas except for one factor: It is being constructed to barge a bulk
commodity up the Columbia River for shipment overseas, and certain special interests object to
the transport or use of that bulk commodity - coal.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
5/20/2018 Ambre Energy Request for Hearing
12/12