May 29, 2019
 
Subject: Public Notification
 
 
Governor Kate Brown has signed into law, effective immediately, HB 4111, which will allow persons in the United States with an Employment Authorization Document issued by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services to be issued an Oregon Driver’s License.  The person who applies for such a license under this HB is not required to provide proof of legal presence in the United States when applying for a limited term identification card or driver’s license. Limited term driver’s license will not be accepted as proof of citizenship for Concealed Hand Gun License.   
 
 
 
As such, effective on June 3, 2019, all persons who wish to apply for a Concealed Handgun License in Coos County will need to bring proof of citizenship with them when applying.  This can be done with an original birth certificate or a US Passport or other government issued identification that meets the required identification requirements. One example is the “new” Real ID compliant drivers license issued by Oregon DMV which requires an additional fee to DMV.
 
 
 
Craig Zanni- Sheriff

Here's why:
CHL requires proof of ID. a while back the legislature attempted to give licenses to illegal aliens claiming it would make the roads safer as they would buy insurance etc… However the voters said no. The legislature has over ruled the voters and authorized a drivers license gain. However those license will not meet the real ID rules as the previous licenses had been doing, as required by federal law.  The new real ID license require an additional fee to the state via DMV if I read the new rule correctly.

​Oregon Parks and Recreation Department // NEWS RELEASE // May 23, 2019
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Chris Havel, Associate Director //
Desk: (503) 986-0722
Cell: (503) 931-2590 // chris.havel@oregon.gov
Christine Curran,
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer //
Desk (503) 986-0684
​Cell: (503) 510-6226 // chrissy.curran@oregon.gov


Community objects to the proposed Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me Traditional Cultural Property Historic District Salem, Ore. Thursday, May 23, 2019 -- The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has determined that the opponents of the proposed Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me (Jordan Cove and the Bay of the Coos People) Traditional Cultural Property Historic District (District) in Coos County submitted enough objections to prevent listing the District in the National Register of Historic Places. According to federal rules for the program, if a majority of the private property owners within a proposed district object to the listing, the district cannot be listed in the National Register. There are 1,001 owners in the boundaries of the proposed district, and 696, or 70%, submitted valid objections.

The SHPO sent the nomination document to the NPS on May 23, 2019 for a “determination of eligibility.” In this process, the NPS determines if the District is eligible for listing in the Register, but does not actually list it. The SHPO expects the NPS to respond before early-July 2019, following a consideration period of up to 45 days.
The nomination document and all materials submitted to the National Park Service (NPS) are online at http://bit.ly/coostcp.

Additional comments may be sent to the National Park Service at:
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
1849 C Street, NW (7228)
Washington, DC 20240
Or
By email to Alexis_Abernathy@nps.gov.


The Oregon SHPO requests that all correspondence be copied to the office at
Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me
State Historic Preservation Office
725 Summer Street NE, Suite C
Salem, OR 97301
Or
By email to ORSHPO.NationalRegisterProgram@oregon.gov

The proposed Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me Traditional Cultural Property Historic District is a 20-square mile area that follows the general horseshoe shape of the Coos Bay Estuary. The District includes portions of the cities of Coos Bay and North Bend and Coos County. A Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) recognizes the cultural significance and identity of a living community. A TCP not only tells the stories of the people who have historically called the area home, but recognizes how the descendants of those people keep the traditional practices and beliefs alive.

The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians (CTCLUSI) nominated the District for its cultural significance to the Tribe. The Tribes tribe’s continued use of the estuary since time immemorial to present is shown by archaeological sites, named places in Hanis and Miluk dialects of the Coosan Language, and the presence of prehistoric and historic burials of peoples at former villages and Native American subsistence sites.

The State Advisory Commission on Historic Preservation, a governor-appointed volunteer commission of people with interest and skill in Oregon history, first reviewed and recommended approval of the nomination in February 2019.
# # #

Contact Info, for media use only:
Chris Havel, Associate Director
Desk: (503) 986-0722
Cell: (503) 931-2590
chris.havel@oregon.gov

Christine Curran, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Desk (503) 986-0684
Cell: (503) 510-6226
chrissy.curran@oregon.gov

Related Posts:
Opt-Out of the Historical Preservation Designation of Coos Bay
OPRD ~ State Advisory Committee Meeting Historic Preservation February 22, 2019

​INTERIOR ANNOUNCES $30.1 MILLION IN PAYMENTS TO RURAL SCHOOLS IN WESTERN OREGON COUNTIES
News Release from Bureau of Land Management Ore. & Wash.
May 15th, 2019 9:26 AM

​WASHINGTON – U .S. Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt announced today the issuance of $30.1 million to 18 counties in western Oregon as a part of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) and Community Self-Determination Act extension. The funding will go directly to the counties, supporting investments in education, infrastructure, public safety, health services, and other critical expenditures made by these jurisdictions.

“The money appropriated to these communities through the Secure Rural Schools Act is critical to their continued prosperity and the vibrancy of our public lands,” said Secretary Bernhardt. “At the Department of the Interior, we are committed to being a good federal partner and neighbor, and this program is one way we help these local economies.”
 
“This announcement is welcome news for Oregon counties that rely on this program,” said U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (OR-02). “I worked closely with the last two Republican Speakers of the House to secure SRS funding for our schools and counties. I applaud the Trump Administration for prioritizing rural Oregon and promptly issuing these payments. While we are all pleased the checks are getting written, what we really need is reform of forest management so we can reduce the size and severity of wildfires and produce good paying jobs and tax revenues in our forest counties. I look forward to continuing to work with President Trump and his team to achieve that goal.”
Background
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages the SRS program in Oregon and California Railroad Revested Lands, known as the O&C Lands, in concert with the U.S. Forest Service. The O&C Lands lie in a checkerboard pattern through 18 counties of western Oregon. These lands contain more than 2.4 million acres of forests with a diversity of plant and animal species, recreation areas, mining claims, grazing lands, cultural and historical resources, scenic areas, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness. SRS payments are made to over 700 counties across the United States, including the 18 counties containing O&C Lands, according to a formula set by Congress.
​
The O&C Lands Act and Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) Act require 50 percent of receipts collected from the sale of timber on O&C lands to be distributed among 18 counties in western Oregon. The payments follow a formula established by these laws, both of which authorize timber receipt-based payments to western Oregon counties, and both of which remain in effect following the expiration of the SRS and Community Self-Determination Act. 

Contact Info, for media use only:
Interior_Press@ios.doi.gov

It is about time the county grew a set and sued the FEDS into submission....Time to separate the CBWR from the O&C Lands as well and it will not happen unless we exert our local authority....Rob T.     

Coos County
April 16, 2019
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Coos County Litigation

Effective immediately, Coos County is entering into litigation against the U.S. Department of
Interior (DOI), acting by and through the Bureau of Land Management, and the Secretary of the
Interior, David Bernhardt.

The Board of Commissioners voted today in favor of seeking a federal judgment requiring, in part, that the DOI to meet its statutory duties under the 1939 Coos Bay Wagon Road Act (1939 Act). For many years, DOI has failed to convene a committee designed by the 1939 Act to fairly appraise Coos Bay Wagon Road lands. Convening this committee every ten (10) years is an unconditional requirement of the 1939 Act. DOI’s failure has wrought tangible harm and forced the County to make difficult financial decisions.

The County views this lawsuit as a last resort after years of efforts to bring DOI into compliance.  While this litigation continues, Coos County will not provide further comments.  “All we are asking the federal government to do is comply with their own law,” stated Commissioner Robert “Bob” Main. “Since we have been asking them for over six years, we have no other choice than to believe they aren’t listening.”

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
250 No. Baxter Street, Coquille, Oregon 97423
(541) 396-7535
FAX (541) 396-1010 / TDD (800) 735-2900
E-mail: bbrooks@co.coos.or.us
JOHN SWEET
MELISSA CRIBBINS
​ROBERT “BOB” MAIN

​STATE REQUESTS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR JORDAN COVE REMOVAL-FILL PERMIT 
News Release from Oregon Dept. of State Lands

 April 11th, 2019 4:47 PM

​SALEM, Ore. – The Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) has requested additional information from Jordan Cove Energy L.P. regarding the Jordan Cove Energy Project removal-fill permit application. 

DSL has completed review of the approximately 49,000 comments submitted during the comment period for the application. The Department’s review focused on identifying substantive issues relevant to the removal-fill law. The applicant has been asked to address multiple substantive issues identified by commenters, as well as other issues identified by DSL. 

The Department’s request to the applicant is available here. 

Applicant response has been requested by May 6, 2019. The applicant may request additional time to respond.

The permit decision deadline is September 20, 2019. In making a permit decision, DSL will evaluate the entire application record against the criteria for removal-fill permit issuance. 

Additional information about the removal-fill permit application is available on the DSL project website.

Contact Info, for media use only:
Ali Ryan Hansen, DSL Communications Manager
ali.r.hansen@state.or.us
503-986-5298 (desk)
503-510-6860 (cell)

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) with the participation of the cooperating agencies listed below, has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas Project proposed by Jordan Cove Energy Project LP (Jordan Cove) and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project proposed by Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline L.P. (Pacific Connector) (collectively referred to as the Jordan Cove Energy Project or Project). Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), Jordan Cove requests authorization to liquefy at a terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon up to 1.04 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day for export for to overseas markets. Pacific Connector seeks a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under Section 7 of the NGA to construct and operate an interstate natural gas transmission pipeline providing about 1.2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from the Malin hub to the Jordan Cove terminal, crossing portions of Klamath, Jackson, Douglas, and Coos Counties, Oregon.

The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As described in the draft EIS, the FERC staff concludes that approval of the Project would result in a number of significant environmental impacts; however, the majority of impacts would be less than significant because of the impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures proposed by Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector and those recommended by staff in the draft EIS.

The United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM); U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service); Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation); U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service; U.S. Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard; the Coquille Indian Tribe; and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation participated as cooperating agencies in preparation of this EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The cooperating agencies provided input into the conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS. Following issuance of the final EIS, the cooperating agencies will issue subsequent decisions, determinations, permits or authorizations for the Project in accordance with each individual agency's regulatory requirements.

The BLM, with the concurrence of the Forest Service and Reclamation, would adopt and use the EIS to consider issuing a right-of-way grant for the portion of the Project on federal lands. Other cooperating agencies would use this EIS in their regulatory process, and to satisfy compliance with NEPA and other related federal environmental laws (e.g., the National Historic Preservation Act).

The BLM and the Forest Service would also use this EIS to evaluate proposed amendments to their District or National Forest land management plans that would make provision for the Pacific Connector pipeline. In order to consider the Pacific Connector right-of-way grant, the BLM must amend the affected Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The BLM therefore proposes to amend the RMPs to re-allocate all lands within the proposed temporary use area and right-of-way to a District-Designated Reserve, with management direction to manage the lands for the purposes of the Pacific Connector right-of-way. Approximately 885 acres would be re-allocated. District-Designated Reserve allocations establish specific management for a specific use or to protect specific values and resources. In accordance with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 36 CFR 219.16, the Forest Service gives notice of its intent to consider amendments of Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) for the Umpqua, Rogue River and Winema National Forests. Proposed amendments of LRMPs include reallocation of matrix lands to Late Successional Reserves and site-specific exemptions from standards and guidelines and other LRMP requirements to allow construction of the Pacific Connector pipeline. Exemptions from standards and guidelines include requirements to protect known sites of Survey and Manage species, changes in visual quality objectives at specific locations, limitations on detrimental soil conditions, removal of effective shade at perennial stream crossings and the construction of utility corridors in riparian areas. Further information on Forest Service LRMP amendments is included below.

The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the draft EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Indian Tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the Project area. The draft EIS is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/​industries/​gas/​enviro/​eis.asp). In addition, the draft EIS may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​elibrary.asp), click on General Search, and enter the docket Start Printed Page 13649number in the “Docket Number” field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-494 or CP17-495). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. Your comments should focus on the draft EIS's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 5, 2019.
​
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission.[1] The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the Project docket numbers (CP17-494-000 and CP17-495-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426

​(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend a public comment session that will be held in the Project area to receive comments on the draft EIS. The dates, locations, and times of these sessions will be provided in a supplemental notice.


Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/​resources/​guides/​how-to/​intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Subsequent decisions, determination, permits, and authorization by the cooperating agencies are subject to the administrative procedures of each respective agency.

​Questions?

Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​esubscription.asp.

Dated: March 29, 2019.

​Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
Footnotes

1.  The contents of your comment including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information may be made available to the public. While you may request that your personal identifying information be withheld from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Back to Citation [FR Doc. 2019-06715 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: OREGON EMPLOYER COUNCIL SPRING CONFERENCE 2019 ANNOUNCEMENT
News Release from Oregon Employment Department
March 26th, 2019 2:30 PM

Downloadable file: Oregon Employer Council Spring Conference 2019

THE MILL CASINO  – The Oregon Employer Council Spring Conference, an annual event, will be held on Monday and Tuesday, April 29th and 30th at The Mill Casino in North Bend.

The Fall Conference offers keynote speakers and breakout sessions on human resources, labor law, and business topics, as well as opportunities to network with businesses from around the state. SHRM credits will be available.

Early bird registration is $299 and standard registration after April 1st is $349. Booths are available for exhibitors for between $600 and $800. To register or for more information, contact Greg Ivers gregory.e.ivers@state.or.us. Agenda and more information are available at www.oec.org.

The Oregon Employer Council is a nonprofit organization with chapters throughout Oregon.  OEC chapters create bridges between business and government, and provide low cost, local training for businesses. Membership is open to all Oregon businesses.


Contact Info:
Greg Ivers, 503-947-5403,
​gregory.e.ivers@state.or.us 

​TWO-MONTH CAMPGROUND CLOSURE AT BULLARDS BEACH EXPECTED
JAN. 2020
News Release from Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept.
 March 26th, 2019 2:49 PM

BANDON, Ore. – The campground and overnight facilities at Bullards Beach State Park will be closed Jan. 1, 2020 – March 9, 2020 for construction on the campground’s main sewer line. All overnight facilities will be closed, including the RV dump station, but the day-use area of the park will remain open.

“Our campers know that they can usually reserve sites up to nine months in advance of their stay,” said Nick Schoeppner, park manager. “That works out to April 1 this year, so we wanted to get the word out about the closure now.”

Schoeppner says the sewer line project will modernize the system and allow for more consistent sewer operation in the campground.

Campsites and other overnight facilities are able to be reserved in advance up to nine months before the first night of stay; for example, a campsite reservation for Jan. 1, 2020 can be made as early as April 1, 2019. A reservation made for Jan. 2, 2020 can be made as early as April 2, 2019, and so on.

At Bullards Beach in 2020, the construction project will make all sites unavailable for reservation until March 10 that year. Applying the nine-month advance reservation rule, a reservation for March 10, 2020 can be made as early as July 10, 2019.

​KPFF, a construction contractor based in Portland, will perform the sewer work at the park.
Find more information about the park online at oregonstateparks.org or call the state parks info center at (800) 551-6949.

Contact Info:
Nick Schoeppner, Park Manager
541-347-2209 ext. 222 (desk)
Nick.Schoeppner@oregon.gov

​PACIFIC POWER OFFERS NEW EQUAL PAYMENT PLAN OPT-OUT OPTION

News Release from Pacific Power
 March 12th, 2019 3:07 PM

Media Contact:                                                          
March 12, 2019
Pacific Power media line                                           
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
800-570-5838


Pacific Power offers new Equal Payment Plan Opt-out option
Customers choosing to opt-out of the statewide meter upgrade can now select a new plan to reduce monthly fees

PORTLAND, Ore. — As part of a statewide metering upgrade designed to improve service to customers through shorter outages and hour-by-hour energy usage information, Pacific Power is providing an additional offering for customers who wish to opt out. As part of a final filing to the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Oregon on Monday, March 11, Pacific Power will now offer a commission-approved Equal Payment Plan Opt-out option to help reduce monthly fees starting March 13.

“We’ve heard from customers that the fee to opt out of a smart meter is burdensome, and we have continued to look for new options,” said Pacific Power Vice President of Regulation, Etta Lockey. “This has been a collaborative process with the PUC and the Citizens’ Utility Board, and we are pleased to offer this new option to customers.”

Smart meters wirelessly deliver hour-by-hour energy usage information to customers via their online account, eliminating the need to wait for a manual meter read and a monthly bill. While only around one percent of customers are opting out of the meter upgrade, choosing to do so adds a cost to continue manual meter reads.

The Equal Payment Option reduces opt-out fees for customers from the current $36 a month to $9 a month, by reducing the number of manual reads to three times per year ($36 per reading, spread across 12 months). It also allows customers to pay a level or equal monthly amount based on a historical average of their previous bills.

The standard opt-out plan will continue to be available as well and provides monthly manual $36 meter reads and bills based on monthly usage.

Customers must select the new option by calling 1-866-869-8520. All residential customers with non-standard meters are eligible to participate. Residential customers with net meters, time of use meters or demand registers would not qualify because it is necessary for the company to obtain routine meter reads to bill customers under those circumstances accurately.

Pacific Power’s upgrade of 590,000 meters began in January 2018 and continues through 2019. Installs are already complete for more than two-thirds of Pacific Power customers in Oregon. An opt-out option was made available during the upgrade to customers who choose to opt-out. In August, Pacific Power removed a $137 fee covering a future replacement of a non-communicative meter with a smart meter to help address the upfront financial impact of the program. This new Equal Payment Plan Opt-out option is part of Pacific Power’s continued review of opt-out fees, to ensure costs are fair for all customers.

Additional information on smart meters, including installation updates, are available at
www.pacificpower.net/smartmeter.
​Customers can also call 866-869-8520 for help with any questions.


-###-
About Pacific Power
Pacific Power provides electric service to more than 740,000 customers in Oregon, Washington, and California. The company works to meet growing energy demand while protecting and enhancing the environment. Pacific Power is part of PacifiCorp, one of the lowest-cost electricity producers in the United States, with 1.9 million customers in six western states Information about Pacific Power is available on the company’s website, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube pages, which can be accessed via pacificpower.net.

Contact Info:
Media hotline: 800-570-5838

PRESIDENT PROPOSED $1.2 BILLION BLM BUDGET TO MEET ENERGY, OTHER PRIORITIES
News Release from Bureau of Land Management Ore. & Wash.
 March 12th, 2019 4:06 PM

WASHINGTON – President Trump has proposed $1.2 billion for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Fiscal Year 2020, allocating the resources needed to carry out BLM’s multiple-use and sustained-yield mission under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) by providing funds to promote responsible energy development, enhance opportunities for outdoor recreation, and advance conservation goals.

In addressing key Administration priorities, the budget request also calls for active management of timber and rangeland resources to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildland fire, create resilient landscapes, and protect local communities. The budget also provides funds for improved management of grazing, wildlife habitat, and other programs to better address the public’s needs while striking a regulatory balance.  Finally, the proposed budget includes funds to support BLM’s costs associated with implementing the Department’s reorganization plan.  This funding supports establishing and implementing Interior’s 12 unified regions, relocation of resources closer to customers, and implementation of shared service solutions.

Sustainably developing energy and natural resources
The 2020 budget promotes an “all of the above” domestic energy strategy to promote America’s energy security and generate revenues for Federal and State treasuries and local economies. 

The budget requests $198.4 million in discretionary resources for Energy and Minerals Management programs and reflects the continuation of actions the BLM has taken to streamline responsible impact analysis while consulting with stakeholders associated with such development.  Of that amount, $137.3 million is allocated for Oil and Gas Management, which includes leasing, permitting, inspection, and enforcement.

In order to fulfill the requirements of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (PL-115-97), the BLM will continue to perform the work necessary to facilitate an initial oil and gas lease sale within the Coastal Plain of Alaska.  The law requires leasing to begin within four years of its passage by Congress.

The Administration continues to support development of minerals important to many Western communities by proposing $19.8 million for the Coal Management Program and $12.3 million for programs associated with the mining of other minerals such as precious metals, trona, limestone, phosphates, sand, and gravel.  The funds would be used to streamline program activities, expedite processing of mining permit applications, and provide for more timely inspection and enforcement actions.

The budget proposes another $29.1 million for the Renewable Energy Program, which includes solar, wind, geothermal, and rights-of-way for transmission and other areas that bolster America’s energy infrastructure.

Restoring Trust and Being a Good Neighbor

The BLM promotes shared stewardship across ownership boundaries and efforts to improve the ability to treat additional acres more resourcefully in order to meet its responsibilities under FLPMA. 

In response to President Trump’s Executive Order to promote active management of forests and rangelands, the BLM budget prioritizes active use of forest management to include forest thinning that increases resilience not only to wildfire but also to insects, disease, and drought.

To execute these activities, the budget calls for $10.2 million for forest management on public domain lands.  The $107.0 million request for the Oregon and California Grant Lands appropriation includes $97.0 million for the O&C Grant Lands Management activity, much of which will lay the groundwork to increase the amount of timber offered for sale there to 280 million board (MMBF) in 2021, reflecting the BLM’s commitment to advance timber production and forest health.  Approximately 226 MMBF were sold in 2018.

Conserving Our Land and Water Resources

Rangeland Management Program, which would absorb responsibilities for soil resources from a reorganized Soil, Water, and Air Management Program, would receive $92.0 million.  Responsibilities for this program include processing grazing fees and leases and investing in vegetation management projects to improve rangeland habitats.
The budget also seeks $75.7 million for the Wild Horse and Burro program, which in 2020 will continue to look for innovative ways to lessen the burden that growing wild horse and burro populations put on fragile rangeland resources and taxpayer resources.  The program will continue to increase public/private partnerships to place more animals into private care and reduce the number housed in government-funded long-term holding facilities, and continue working with organizations to create private/public partnerships on pasture/sanctuary lands.  The program will also continue working with academia and Federal partners to enhance existing fertility control vaccines and develop new population controls through research projects, and continue to pursue adoptions and sales, including incentivizing adoptions.

The proposed 2020 budget supports Secretarial Order 3362, Improving Habitat in Western Big-Game and Migration Corridors, by identifying $7.0 million to be used in coordination with States to support big game as well as evaluation and implementation of habitat restoration.

Expanding Outdoor Recreation

The budget proposal will continue to prioritize expanding access for the American public to the vast recreation resources on BLM lands, including hunting, fishing, and many other uses.  It proposes $54.8 million for Recreation Resources Management to meet growing public demand and will focus on areas in need of visitor services at the highest visitation sites.

The budget also includes $37.1 million for National Monuments and National Conservation Areas programs to protect designated historic landmarks, historic, and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest on the public lands, and to support outstanding recreational opportunities and public access for hunting, fishing, and other uses.

Cultural Resources Management, which supports the inventory, protection, and stabilization of BLM cultural sites, will receive $15.6 million. The program will also continue to provide support and guidance on consultation with Indian Tribes and to other BLM programs.

Modernizing the BLM

The budget advances the Department’s priority of modernizing the organization of the BLM in conjunction with the larger reorganization of the Department of the Interior.  For the BLM, this means relocating some staff and other assets to the West.

The new organization aims to reduce bureaucratic redundancy, improve communication between agency experts in the field and leaders in Washington, D.C., and allow the BLM to share its knowledge and resources more effectively among the Department’s field staff and local stakeholders.

# # #
Contact Info:
blm_press@blm.gov 

Opt-Out of the Historical Preservation Designation of Coos Bay

On November 1st 2018, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians filed an application to place 20 square miles of land surrounding the Coos Bay on the National Register of Historic Places.

The only way to stop the government from listing the area on the National Register of Historic Places is for a majority of affected landowners to file an official Historic District Objection Form with the State of Oregon by May 10, 2019. 

Even though most of the area is submerged, the designation will affect properties inland from the high tide line.  The Tribe is making this proposal for the benefit of keeping the city accountable and to have more authority over their archeological lands. The area includes 158 archaeological and culturally significant sites,

The Parks & Rec Commission forwarded the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places on February 22 at their meeting in The Mill Casino, which the Coquille Indians own.  The people of Coos County have to get the word out for the opt-out. 

The group Coos Concerned Property Owners has opened up an office at 281 South Broadway, in Downtown Coos Bay a few doors down from the Prefontaine mural.  Their hours are Monday thru Friday between 9am to 6pm, or you can go to their website.

STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETS FEBRUARY 22 IN NORTH BEND
News Release from Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept.

NORTH BEND, Ore. – The State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation (SACHP) will meet at 9 a.m., Friday, Feb. 22 at the Mill Casino, 3201 Tremont Street, North Bend, OR 97459, and consider nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. The meeting is open to the public.

Friday’s meeting agenda: a presentation by the national register program coordinator, and hearings of one delisting request and three proposed nominations. Hearings will begin at 10:15 a.m. For specific hearing times, refer to the online agenda: www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/NATREG/Pages/nrhp_sachphome.aspx

The committee will review a delisting request for the John M. and Elizabeth Bates House in Lake Oswego. The committee will review three proposed nominations: the Roy E. and Hildur L. Amundsen House, Gresham; the Oregon Trail: La Grande to Hilgard Segment, Union County; and the Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me Traditional Cultural Property Historic District, Coos County.

Nominations recommended by the SACHP go to the National Park Service, which maintains the Register under the authority of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

The SACHP is a nine-member governor-appointed citizen commission with credentials in many historic preservation-related fields.

The meeting site is accessible to people with disabilities. Special accommodations for the meeting may be made with at least three days of advance notice by calling (503) 986-0690.

More information about the National Register of Historic Places process is online at www.oregonheritage.org (click on “National Register” at left of page).
​
Contact Info:
Robert Olguin, National Register Program Coordinator
Oregon State Historic Preservation Office
503-986-0668; robert.olguin@oregon.gov

February 22, 2019 - The SACHP will review the nomination document for the proposed Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me Traditional Cultural Property Historic District. The meeting will be at the Mill Casino, 3201 Tremont Street, North Bend, beginning at 1:00 p.m.
 
May 10, 2019 - Requested last day to submit notarized objections to the Oregon SHPO for the proposed historic district. Any notarized objection received after this date will be forwarded to the National Park Service before they make a final decision.
 
May 23, 2019 - Nomination for the proposed Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me TCP Historic District is forwarded by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to the National Park Service for a final decision. This date will change if the SACHP does not recommend that the district be listed in the National Register at its February 22nd meeting.
 
July 2019 - Expected date that the National Park Service will make a final decision regarding listing the proposed Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me TCP Historic District in the National Register. This date will change if the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation (SACHP) does not recommend that the district be listed in the National Register at its February 22nd meeting.
 
More information can be found at the City web site at http://coosbay.org/departments/community-development-department#planning-division  and the State Office of Historic Preservation web site at https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/NATREG/pages/index.aspx. ​

Hello Everyone,
The special elections are very important for local decisions.  There is going to be millions of dollars going through the school districts especially concerning the Community Enhancement Plan and it would be nice to have a few fiscal conservatives on these boards.  Please consider running for office in the special districts election of Coos County....Rob T.

Coos County Republican Central Committee
There will be SASO petitions to sign. 
Join the regular January Monthly Meeting
When
Thursday, January  24th, 6:00 pm
Where
Pony Village Mall, 1611 Virginia Ave, N.B. OR 97459 Room # 155
What
For those who wish to participate, they usually start the meeting with a potluck dinner, and you are invited to bring a potluck dish to share.
The county party will be voting on some proposed changes to their bylaws to keep in compliance with the State Party rule changes made in Last September.
They will be discussing the ORP organizational meeting coming up this next month.
Please notice that the meetings are back at Pony Village Please check them out at www.facebook.com/coosgop
​

Port of Coos Bay Commission Meeting Notice
The Board of Commissioners of the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay will hold its Regular Commission Meeting at 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 22, 2019, in the Port’s Commission Chambers, located at 125 West Central Avenue, Suite 230, Coos Bay, OR.

AGENDA 
6. ACTION ITEMS
B. GMA Garnet Enterprise Zone Agreement
C. Jordan Cove Enterprise Zone Agreement
An Executive Session has also been scheduled on Tuesday, January 22, 2019, immediately after the Commission Meeting, in the Port’s Commission Chambers, at the same place.
(e) negotiate real property transactions;
(h) consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed;
(i) review and evaluate the job performance of a chief executive officer,
(j) carry on negotiations proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments.
 **********************************************************************
​

download the Port Commission meeting packet here:
https://www.portofcoosbay.com/port-commission ​

Related Posts:
Oregon Dept of State Lands Public Hearings for Jordan Cove Project in January
LTE ~ JCEP Expanding its Slick PR Campaign
Community Enhancement Plan Workgroup Meeting Thursday, December 06, 2018
Coos County Commissioners Approve Tax Free Living in Bay Area Enterprise Zone
Coos County Planning Approves Extension Request for LNG Natural Gas Pipeline
Coos County Regular Board Meeting Tues 9:30am Dec. 5, 2017 ~ LNG on Agenda
FERC Notice of EIS for JCEP Public Comments & Meetings ~ Coos Bay June 27, 2017
Coos County Grants One Year Extension Approval for LNG Pipeline for the JCEP
BOC ~ Notice of Deliberation on JCEP Tuesday August 16, 2016
Public Meeting for Coos County April 19 & North Bend April 26, 2016 on JCEP
Open Letter to the Coos County Board of Commissioners Concerning the JCEP
LTE ~ Leshley Don't Know Dick About the JCEP Work Camp
Jody McCaffree Appeals LNG Road Construction Coos County Planning Oct. 9, 2015
Do Enterprise Zones Work? ~ An Ideopolis Policy Paper February 2011
Educational Enterprise Zone Workshop Roseburg OR Thursday, September 17, 2015
Coos County Planning Decisions on LNG & Effected Roads

Hello Everyone,
After reading over the new draft of the "Smart Meter" ordinance it became obvious that it did not have an Opt-Out option, so this measure is a useless piece of legislation.  The people of Coos County will have to step up and speak out for the opt-out option for all residents.....Rob T.  

 Tuesday, January 15: 6:00 PM Hearing- Amending the Coos County Code to Promulgate Rules & Regulations Protecting County Citizens from Arbitrary and Excessive Utility Charges- Owen Building large conference room

Hello Randal,

Would you please look over the new Smart Meter ordinance from the county BOC.  They don't have it on the agenda, but that is a SM ordinance.  

However, the Board makes it for hardship cases and they get to set the criteria on what is a hardship case.  Please read it thoroughly.   
Sincerely,
Rob Taylor

Smart Meter OP ED

Smart Meters are data gathering and control endpoints of the Smart Grid. The Smart Grid was kicked into gear when the Federal Government passed the Stimulus Bill in Feb 2009 providing an 11 Billion Dollar financial motivation for what we see happening with Smart Meter Deployment nationwide.

​Propaganda of lowering power costs and improving the environment are false promises to hide the real objective of data collection, surveillance and control. Actually, the US Power Grid becomes more insecure with remote access and our environment is harmed by the substantial increase in RF Microwave transmissions. Smart Meters commonly utilize RF Microwave Frequencies similar to cell phones to provide 2 way communications with the utility. This not only puts individual customers at risk of hacking by Bad Actors, but also puts the whole power grid at risk because now your power can be cut remotely. Utilities tell you it is a good thing that your power can be disconnected remotely.

Smart Meters being remotely reprogrammable, having undisclosed capabilities, and completely out of our control, should scare every American who cares about security and safety for their home & family. Think 4th Amendment!

Smart Meters observe your power usage patterns during the day. This exposes activities like when you are home, when you sleep etc. When you consider that detailed data gathering does not benefit the customer at all; and yet makes tremendous profits for utilities and other agencies through Federal Grants and data sales to third parties, you start to see why the corporate leaning regulatory bodies like Oregon Public Utilities Commission are so dead set on forcing this invasive computerized technology on our homes. They levy completely illegal Opt Out Fees and yet are getting away with it in many US States, including Oregon.

Smart Meters do not save the consumer money! It only costs the consumer more and more! Computerized overbilling cannot be disputed successfully since there is no mechanical proof. Overbilling is common. Utility fees go Up and Up after deployment of Smart Meters. Then they will start Time-Of-Use to gouge you some more to keep your home warm or cool.

New Mexico’s Public Regulation Commission rejected the Smart Meter Deployment with Opt Out Fees because it did not benefit the public in any way and all power company claimed benefits to customers were declared false. Smart Meters only cost the customer more with no benefits.

Why did Oregon Public Utilities Commissioners approve and New Mexico’s Public Regulation Commissioners reject? New Mexico has “Elected” Commissioners which held public “Hearings” in which public comments and submitted evidence is allowed and must be included in the record for consideration. Oregon has “Appointed” Commissioners who did not hold public “Hearings” on Pacific Power’s Smart Meter Deployment Application with Opt Out Fees. Oregon PUC only had “meetings” in which public testimony was not allowed. The lack of contrary evidence on the record makes the Oregon PUC feel emboldened to repeat Pacific Power’s lies as if they were true.

The US Supreme Court is the only way to reverse this travesty of citizens being forced to decide between their health, safety and privacy; or; having to pay Extortion Fees that many just cannot afford. US citizens that have removed their smart meter and replaced it with an analog meter, which is completely within their constitutional rights to protect their home with force if necessary, are being convicted of Tampering Laws. Tampering Laws were never enacted to allow a utility to force an invasive harmful device on our homes, and of which they have total control! This is completely in violation of our 4th Amendment Rights and must be the basis of the appeal to the US Supreme Court. The illegal Opt Out Fees that were used to force this invasion on Americans is plain and simple Mafia style Extortion.

Smart Meter OP ED

Although the Opt Out fees are Double Billing, this argument will not hold up legally because they can pass a new budget removing the double billing. That feeling you get in your gut when you know something is wrong, but you just cannot put your finger on it, is totally justified in this case. Reducing costs by eliminating meter readers is a smoke-screen and a lie! The costs to read Smart Meters many times exceeds the costs to read analog meters! To read customers power usage with a Smart Meter, they must install new meters, new antennas, new infrastructure, hire more new personnel than the meter readers they fired, maintain the smart grid infrastructure, etc.

Customers refusing smart meters are being charged Opt Out fees, Meter Reading Fees and Meter installation fees while customers who accept Smart Meters are not being charged additional costs necessary to read their meters, installation fees or any other smart grid expenses! The Oregon Public Utilities Commissioners are bound by Oregon Statutes to insure fair cost based rates to customers; they have violated the law!

We have covered the 2 main issues so far;
1. Our Constitutional Rights to Choice when it comes to our home and safety, were violated.
2. Illegal Extortionary means were utilized.

Additional risks of Smart Meters not presented into evidence at Oregon Public Utilities Commission meetings are numerous.

Exposure to RF Microwaves 24/7. Despite the thousands of studies clearly showing the harm of non-ionizing RF Microwave exposure, this technology is being forced on our homes without our informed consent, exposing us to high power RF Microwave pulses every few seconds, 10,000 to 190,000 times a day.

Smart Meter Fires due to internal failure. Utilities divert attention away from this extreme risk to life and property by blaming fires on Hot Sockets and faulty wiring, accepting no responsibility and providing no insurance for Smart Meters. Smart Meter fires are well documented and still happening. In the first 6 months of 2018 British Columbia had 60 Smart Meter fires. Analog Meters never catch on fire!

Citizens in the U.S. are supposed to be protected by the constitution. The Right to refuse this fire risk on our homes is being taken away! The financial hardship of Opt Out Fees is just too much for many and people were not informed of the dangers. There is purposeful deception & lying taking place which is depriving the public of critical information that directly affects their family’s safety!

What will they put inside these meters forced onto our homes next? 5G? More advanced spying and control technology? How can we Stop this Invasion on our homes?

Band every County and City in your state together in a class action law suit against your states Utility Commission! Educate your county commissioners and legal counsel. The combining of legal teams means no more running out of money to force this to the US Supreme Court.

Join with Josephine County Oregon in doing ordinances to stop smart meters. Force the US Supreme Court to Rule on Our Right to Refuse Computerized Technology being forced on our homes.

We must stand up and win this or our rights as Americans will be gone forever ! !

Randal Barrett,
​Advocate NoSmartMeter.org

​Laws binding on OPUC Commissioners:
756.040 General powers.
(1) In addition to the powers and duties now or hereafter transferred to or vested in the
Public Utility Commission, the commission shall represent the customers of any public utility or tele-communications utility and the public generally in all controversies respecting rates, valuations, service and all matters of which the commission has jurisdiction. In respect thereof the commission shall make use of the jurisdiction and powers of the office to protect such customers, and the public generally, from unjust and unreasonable exactions and practices and to obtain for them adequate service at fair and reasonable rates.
The commission shall balance the interests of the utility investor and the consumer in establishing fair and reasonable rates. Rates are fair and reasonable for the purposes of this subsection if the rates provide adequate revenue both for operating expenses of the public utility or telecommunications utility and for capital costs of the utility, with a return to the equity holder that is:
Laws Utilities are bound by:
757.020 Duty of utilities to furnish adequate and safe service at reasonable rates. Every public utility is required to furnish adequate and safe service, equipment and facilities, and the charges made by any public utility for any service rendered or to be rendered in connection therewith shall be reasonable and just, and every unjust or unreasonable charge for such service is prohibited.
757.210 Hearing to establish new schedules; alternative regulation plan.
(1)(a) Whenever any public utility files with the Public Utility Commission any rate or schedule of rates stating or establishing a new rate or schedule of rates or increasing an existing rate or schedule of rates, the commission may, either upon written complaint or upon the commission’s own initiative, after reasonable notice, conduct a hearing to determine whether the rate or schedule is fair, just and reasonable. The commission shall conduct the hearing upon written complaint filed by the utility, its customer or customers, or any other proper party within 60 days of the utility’s filing; provided that no hearing need be held if the particular rate change is the result of an automatic adjustment clause. At the hearing the utility shall bear the burden of showing that the rate or schedule of rates proposed to be established or increased or changed is fair, just and reasonable. The commission may not authorize a rate or schedule of rates that is not fair, just and reasonable.
(b) As used in this subsection, “automatic adjustment clause” means a provision of a rate schedule that provides for rate increases or decreases or both, without prior hearing, reflecting increases or decreases or both in costs incurred, taxes paid to units of government or revenues earned by a utility and that is subject to review by the commission at least once every two years. (2)(a) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to rate changes under an approved alternative form of regulation plan, including a resource rate plan under ORS 757.212.
(b) Any alternative form of regulation plan shall include provisions to ensure that the plan
operates in the interests of utility customers and the public generally and results in rates that
are just and reasonable and may include provisions establishing a reasonable range for rate of
return on investment. In approving a plan, the commission shall, at a minimum, consider
whether the plan:
(A)
Promotes increased efficiencies and cost control;
(B) Is consistent with least-cost resources acquisition policies;
(C) Yields rates that are consistent with those that would be obtained following application
of ORS 757.269;
(D) Is consistent with maintenance of safe, adequate and reliable service; and
(E) Is beneficial to utility customers generally, for example, by minimizing utility rates.
(c) As used in this subsection, “alternative form of regulation plan” means a
Plan adopted by the commission upon petition by
a public utility, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that sets rates and revenues and
a method for changes in rates and revenues using alternatives to cost-of-service rate
regulation.
(d) Prior to implementing a rate change under an alternative form of regulation plan, the
utility shall present a report that demonstrates the calculation of any proposed rate change at
a public meeting of the commission.
(3)
Except as provided in ORS 757.212, the commission, at any time, may order a utility to
appear and establish that any, or all, of its rates in a plan authorized under subsection (2) of
this section are in conformity with the plan and are just and reasonable. Except as provided
in ORS 757.212, such rates, and the alternative form of regulation plan under which the rates
are set, also shall be subject to complaint under ORS 756.500.
(4) Periodically, but not less often thanevery two years after the implementation of a plan
referred to in subsection (2) of this section, the commission shall submit a reportto the
Legislative Assembly that shows the Title 57 Page 28 (2015 Edition)
UTILITY REGULATION GENERALLY
757.212 impact of the plan on rates paid by utility customers.
(5)
The commission and staff may consult at any time with, and provide technical assistance to,
utilities, their customers, and other interested parties on matters relevant to utility rates and
charges. If a hearing is held with respect to a rate change, the commission’s decisions shall
be based on the record made at the hearing.
757.225 Utilities required to collect for their services in accordance with schedules.
No public utility shall charge, demand, collect or receive a greater or less compensation for
any service performed by it within the state, or for any service in connection therewith, than
is specified in printed rates schedules as may at the time be in force, or demand, collect or
receive any rate not specified in such schedule. The rates named therein are the lawful rates
until they are changed as provided in ORS 757.210 to 757.220.
757.227
Rate mitigation for certain electric company rate increases.
(1) As used in this section, “electric company” has the meaning given that term in ORS
757.600.
(2) The Public Utility Commission shall require that an electric company mitigate a rate
increase payable by a class of customers described in subsection (5) of this section if:
(a) The increase results from a transition to an electric company’s generally applicable costbased
rate from the rates established under the contracts described in subsection (5) of this
section; and
(b) The increase in the cost of electricity to that class of customers by reason of the transition
will exceed 50 percent during the first 12 calendar months after the transition occurs.
(3) The commission shall require an electric company to mitigate a rate increase under this
section by means of a schedule of rate credits for the class of customers described in
subsection (5) of this section. The rate credits provided by an electric company under the
schedule shall automatically decrease each year to the lowest credit necessary to avoid a rate
increase that is greater than 50 percent in any subsequent year. Rate credits under this section
may not be provided for more than seven years after the transition occurs.
(4) For the purpose of determining the increase in the cost of electricity to a class of
customers by reason of a transition described in subsection (2)(a) of this section,
the commission shall:
(a) Include the total charges for electricity service, including all special charges and credits
other than the rate credit provided under this section; and
(b) Exclude any local taxes or fees paid by the class of customers.
(5) This section applies only to customers of an electric company that purchase electricity at
metering points that before the transition described in subsection
(2)(a) of this section were eligible for rates that were set under contracts entered into before
1960 and remained unchanged throughout the period of the contract.
(6) The full cost of providing rate credits under this section shall be spread equally among all
other customers of the electric company.
[2005 c.594 §3]
757.355 Costs of property not presently providing utility service excluded from rate base;
exception.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a public utility may not, directly or
indirectly, by any device, charge, demand, collect or receive from any customer rates that
include the costs of construction, building, installation or real or personal property not
presently used for providing utility service to the customer.
(2)
The Public Utility Commission may allow rates for a water utility that include the costs of a
specific capital improvement if the water utility is required to use the additional revenues
solely for the purpose of completing the capital improvement.
757.755 Termination of residential electric or natural gas service prohibited; rules of
commission.
(1) The Public Utility Commission of Oregon shall establish rules to prohibit the termination
of residential electric or natural gas service when such termination would significantly
endanger the physical health of the residential consumer.
(2) The commission shall provide by rule a method for determining when the termination of
residential electric or natural gas service would significantly endanger the physical health of
the residential consumer.
CUB
774.020 Policy. The people of the State of Oregon hereby find that utility consumers need an
effective advocate to assure that public policies affecting the quality and price of utility services
reflect their needs and interests, that utility consumers have the right to form an organization
which will represent their interests before legislative, administrative and judicial bodies, and
that utility consumers need a convenient manner of contributing to the funding of such an
organization so that it can advocate forcefully and vigorously on their behalf concerning all
matters of public policy affecting their health, welfare and economic well-being.
[1985 c.1 §1]
774.030 Citizens’ Utility Board; powers.
(1) The Citizens’ Utility Board is hereby created as an independent nonprofit public corporation
and is authorized to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
(2) The Citizens’ Utility Board has perpetual succession and it may sue and be sued, and may in
its own name purchase and dispose of any interest in real and personal property, and shall have
such other powers as are granted to corporations by ORS 65.077. No part of its net earnings
shall inure to the benefit of any individual or member of the Citizens’ Utility Board.
(3) The Citizens’ Utility Board shall have all rights and powers necessary to represent and
protect the interests of utility consumers, including but not limited to the following powers:
(a) To conduct, fund or contract for research, studies, plans, investigations, demonstration
projects and surveys.
(b) To represent the interests of utility consumers before legislative, administrative and judicial
bodies.
(c) To accept grants, contributions and appropriations from any source, and to contract for
services.
(d) To adopt and modify bylaws governing the activities of the Citizens’ Utility Board.
[1985 c.1 §3; 1989 c.1010 §179]

Related Posts:
Coos County Commissioners Release Draft of "Smart Meter" Ordinance ​
NO Smart Meter Meeting NB Library Thursday November 1, 2018

​Soon the state legislature will be in session, and every person who owns a firearm will be in the sights of its members because they are beaming with new ideas in ways to disarm the citizens of Oregon. 
 
In 2015, the voters of Coos County overwhelmingly enacted the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance, which made national news and brought a great deal of attention to the issue. 
 
Since then eighteen other counties in OR had Chief Petitioners file a SAPO as an initiative in their county, and these people deserve gratitude for allowing themselves to become vulnerable to public scrutiny and taking on this controversial challenge.  It is not an easy job to approach your fellow citizen and ask them for their information.  
 
The county clerk for five of those Oregon counties rejected the SAPO initiative for circulation, two counties have those petitions still circulating, and the majority of voters in eight of those counties enacted the SAPO initiative in this past election. 
 
Unfortunately, the voters of two Oregon counties rejected the SAPO on the ballot essentially rejecting their own Second Amendment rights.  A citizen in another county decided to challenge the law in court, and they won the case against the ordinance.   
 
The challenge will not affect the enforcement of the SAPO in other counties. 
 
As a way to counter any future court cases, The Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment has drafted a new measure the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance.  Our attorneys believe it to be a much stronger statute and we plan to encourage citizens from every Oregon County to file the SASO as a new initiative for 2019. 
 
A chief petitioner has already filed in Coos County.  It is the first county in OR to have this new ordinance filed as an initiative.   Josephine County passed a similar law by a vote of their commissioners this past year, so they are the first official Second Amendment Sanctuary County in the state.  Our goal is to turn every county into a sanctuary for gun owners, and we plan to do it “one county at a time.”  
 
Why should counties with a Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance replace it with the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance?
 
Even though some legal experts agree it is a good law, there is a chance the courts could strike down the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance or (SAPO) because it authorizes the sheriff to determine whether a state or federal law violates an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.  The county sheriff has a great deal of discretionary authority, and they have to choose every day which law they will and will not enforce for many different reasons, mostly budgetary.
 
The SAPO may go too far in conflating two branches of government.  The judicial branch of government is the one authorized to determine the constitutionality of the law while sheriffs are part of the executive branch of government, which enforces the law.  It goes to the separation of powers.  
 
Moreover, if the county sheriff does not believe in the rights ratified in the Second Amendment they can choose to go ahead and enforce federal and state firearm laws even though their county might have enacted a SAPO. 
 
The new measure, the SASO, eliminates the sheriff’s role as a determining factor, and it utilizes the anti-commandeering doctrine, which President James Madison writes about in Federalist paper #46.  The practice protects cities and counties from having to use their resources to uphold or cooperate with state and federal laws they find immoral or objectionable. 
 
The SASO imposes a directive on the county government not to aid, assist or dedicate any funds or personnel to uphold any state or federal laws concerning firearms or firearms accessories.  It is the same defense used by sanctuary cities to protect illegal aliens from federal enforcement, and even the wording is very similar. 
 
Any court that rules against the SASO on the basis a city or county cannot determine where their local government will spend their tax dollars would be ruling against enactments that establish sanctuaries for people who have violated federal immigration law because both of them utilize the same legal principle.  
 
The SASO has some limitations in its enforcement, as do most laws. 
 
It does not protect felons in possession of a firearm.  It does not allow people to carry guns in government buildings.  It does not stop state or federal agents from coming into the county to enforce laws regarding firearms or firearm accessories.  It does not prevent the police in the cities from enforcing these laws unless that municipality has passed a SASO of their own.  It does not keep private or retail sellers of firearms from running a background check, which all goes to show that even sanctuaries cannot escape the overreach of government.  
 
The SASO is not a silver bullet against all rules and regulations that violate the tenet of infringement. 
 
However, the SASO will prevent the sheriff and county officials from enforcing state and federal or any other extraterritorial laws concerning firearms and their accessories. It is a hedge against one level of local government, and it eliminates the highest law officer in the county and his deputies from participating in any enforcement operation by the state to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens.   It also sends a loud message echoing the phrase “shall not be infringed” to gun-grabbing legislators.
 
Anyone who would like to find out more info or to help us in our campaign should surf to our website www.SanctuaryOrdinance.com where you can volunteer, sign up for our newsletter, or donate to the campaign.  For all other inquires all interested parties can send an email to sanctuaryordinance@gmail.com. 
 
About the author:
Rob Taylor is a local activist from Coos County who serves as Chair of the Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment.   

To the citizens of Coos County:

Soon the state legislature will be in session, and every person who owns a firearm will be in the sights of its members because they are beaming with new ideas in ways to disarm the citizens of Oregon. 

To counter these attacks on our liberty, a couple of months ago I filed another measure called the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance and I finally got the SASO petition sheets approved to sign for Coos County residents.  Anyone who is a registered voter of Coos County can sign this petition. 

We are the first county in OR to have this new ordinance filed as an initiative.   Josephine County passed a similar law by a vote of their commissioners this past year, so they are the first official Second Amendment Sanctuary County in the state.  Our goal is to turn every county into a sanctuary for law-abiding gun owners, and we plan to do it “one county at a time.”  
 
Anyone who would like to find out more info or to help us in our campaign should surf to our website www.SanctuaryOrdinance.com where you can volunteer, sign up for our newsletter, or donate to the campaign.  For all other inquires all interested parties can send an email to sanctuaryordinance@gmail.com.   
Sincerely, Rob Taylor

​News Release from Oregon Dept. of State Lands

Posted on FlashAlert: December 21st, 2018 4:03 PM

Five public hearings will be held between Jan. 7 and 15 to hear comment on the removal-fill permit application for the proposed Jordan Cove Energy Project.  

In order to protect Oregon's water resources, the state removal-fill law requires projects that remove or fill material in wetlands or waterways to obtain a permit from the Department of State Lands (DSL). Input received during the permit application public comment period is used to determine what additional information the applicant may be required to provide, what issues the applicant may need to address, and ultimately to inform the Department’s permit decision.  
DSL will hold five public hearings to hear comment on the application: 
•    Klamath Falls: Monday, Jan. 7 from 5:30-8 p.m. at Klamath Falls Community College, Commons Building, 7390 S 6th St.
•    Central Point: Tuesday, Jan. 8 from 5:30-8 p.m. at the Jackson County Expo, Padgham Pavilion, 1 Peninger Rd. 
•    Canyonville: Wednesday, Jan. 9 from 5:30-8 p.m. at Seven Feathers Casino, Cedar Room, 146 Chief Miwaleta Ln.
•    North Bend: Thursday, Jan. 10 from 5:30-8 p.m. at the Mill Casino, Salmon Room West, 3201 Tremont Ave.
•    Salem: Tuesday, Jan. 15 from 5:30-8 p.m. at the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Auditorium, 700 Summer St NE. Please note this is a new location, directly across the street from the original DSL location.  
 
Doors will open at 5:15 p.m. for comment signup to begin. DSL asks that all attendees contribute to a respectful setting and a productive public comment hearing by following the hearing ground rules and comment procedures available on the DSL website: https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/WW/Pages/jordancove.aspx 

Comments may also be submitted to jordancove@dsl.state.or.us, by postal mail, or through a comment form. Full comment submittal information is available on the DSL website. 

The 60-day public review and comment period began Dec. 6, 2018, and ends Feb. 3, 2019, at 5 p.m. All comments must be received by this date and time to be considered. 

The complete application is available for download on the DSL website. Paper copies of the application are also available at the Coos Bay Public Library, the Sutherlin Library, the Winston Branch Library, the Jackson County Library, and the Klamath County Library. 
​
Contact Info:
Ali Ryan Hansen, DSL Communications Manager
ali.r.hansen@state.or.us
503-510-6860 (cell)

AGENDA
Community Enhancement Plan Workgroup
December 6, 2018 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Coos Bay City Hall City Council Chambers
2:00 Welcome and Introductions Melissa Cribbins
2:15  Presentation on history of CEP discussions and EZ Agreement
 
2:45 Review of proposed EZ Agreement between Jordan Cove and Sponsors
 
3:00 Review of proposed CEP Agreement between Zone Sponsors
 
3:15 Discussion of EZ Agreement and CEP Agreement
Workgroup Members
 
Public Comment will be taken at the end of the meeting.  Workgroup Members are not approving either agreement, but may make a motion to recommend passing the agreements to their respective governing bodies.  Both Agreements (the EZ Agreement and the CEP) must be approved by all four Zone Sponsors at a duly noticed public meeting.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/569e6f1176d99c4f392858c4/t/5c01abc74fa51ac22714df29/1543613387743/CEP+Presentation+12+06+18.pdf

Related posts:
Oregon Firearms Federation 2018 General Election Candidate Grades
Vote YES on Coos County Measure 6-168 & End the Debt ​
Feel-Good Tax Repeal on the Ballot in Coos County
City of Bandon ~ Ballot Measure 6-172 Pool Funding ~ Voting YES Means No Pool ​