Opinion ID: 835909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: parrett mountain petitioners

Text: In the proceedings below, the Sherwood faulta geological formation underlying the pipeline's proposed route in the Parrett Mountain areawas of particular concern for Parrett Mountain petitioners, because of the possible earthquake activity often associated with faults. The council found, however, that Northwest Natural's application met the structural standards imposed by OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(1) and demonstrated that Northwest Natural could design, engineer, and construct the pipeline to avoid seismic and soil-related dangers to human safety. On review, Parrett Mountain petitioners argue that substantial evidence in the record does not support the council's finding. To understand petitioners' argument fully, some explanation regarding the geological assessment of the Parrett Mountain/Sherwood area is needed. OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(1)(h) required Northwest Natural to submit, with its application, information from reasonably available sources regarding the geological and soil stability of the site and vicinity. To comply with that requirement, Northwest Natural hired an independent engineering firm to compile a geological assessment of the proposed pipeline corridor. In examining the Parrett Mountain portion of the corridor, the firm conducted, among other things, an aerial study of the region's topography, searching for potential landslide hazards with digital sonar technology and aerial photography. Field investigations of areas identified as potential trouble spots followed the aerial study. The engineering firm also relied, in part, on a 1995 study that had examined the Sherwood fault for earthquake potential and found no evidence that the fault had moved in the last 1.6 to 2 million years. In addition, the firm used its own aerial photographs to determine that soil deposits covering the surface projection of the fault from past geologic ages had remained undisturbed for roughly ten thousand years. As a result of its studies, the engineering firm concluded that the fault should not be considered potentially active and that the pipeline was unlikely to be threatened by landslides in the area. Parrett Mountain petitioners, however, also engaged an independent experta certified geologistto review geotechnical data from the area and physically examine the proposed pipeline site. Upon completing his research, the geologist testified that Northwest Natural had failed to (1) use or refer to the best and most detailed study of the local geology; (2) identify two significant landslides in the middle of the corridor that should be of concern to the pipeline designers; and (3) address the considerable evidence of soil creep in the area. [8] In response, a representative of Northwest Natural's engineering firm testified that his firm had not used the study referred to by the Parrett Mountain geologist Groundwater Conditions of Basalt Aquifers, Parrett Mountain, Northern Willamette Valley because of its focus on groundwater resources rather than fault hazards. The engineering firm nevertheless reviewed the groundwater study, and its representative later presented evidence documenting multiple discrepancies in the study's geological mapping. As a result, the engineering firm's representative concluded that the study's geological map and associated cross sections did not meet generally accepted standards of quality for published maps, calling the map's reliability into question. The engineering firm's representative also noted that, in any event, the ground water study presented nothing to indicate that the Sherwood fault, in fact, was active. Northwest Natural's engineering firm also returned to the Parrett Mountain area to investigate the landslide sites and soil creep reported by the Parrett Mountain geologist. The engineering firm found no evidence of landslide activity at the locations that the Parrett Mountain expert had noted. The firm also concluded that slope irregularities in the area were generally not the product of soil creep, but rather traces of old logging activitiesthe remains of access roads, dragline scars, and removed or rotted stumps. Although the firm did discover some instances of soil creep, the firm found that the affected areas were shallow and unlikely to disturb the pipeline because of the depth at which it would be buried. On review, Parrett Mountain petitioners argue that, to the extent that their expert's evidence conflicts with evidence presented by Northwest Natural's experts, unfilled gaps exist in the demonstration of Northwest Natural's ability to meet the structural standards imposed by OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(1). Because of those gaps, they argue, this court should conclude that the council's final order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We disagree. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding. ORS 183.482(8)(c). In making that determination, the probative weight to be accorded the testimony of expert witnesses is for the trier of fact to apportion. Cf. State v. Clark, 286 Or. 33, 40-41, 593 P.2d 123 (1979) (stating principle in nonadministrative law context). Here, in arguing that the parties' clash of experts effectively has deprived the record of substantial evidence, Parrett Mountain petitioners implicitly ask this court to either weigh the evidence in the record, reexamine the credibility of the experts, or both. That is not our function in this case. Although the testimony of the respective experts is in conflict, a simple conflict in evidence is not a sufficient basis for this court to conclude that the council's findings regarding OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(1) are unsupported by substantial evidence. In any event, even if we were to assume, without deciding, that the Parrett Mountain expert indeed did create an evidentiary gap in the record when he testified before the council, we could not say the same after Northwest Natural's expert responded. Neither Northwest Natural's engineering firm nor the council dismissed out of hand the concerns contained in the Parrett Mountain expert's testimonythe unused groundwater study, the undiscovered landslide sites, and soil creep in the area. The record shows that Northwest Natural's experts reviewed the groundwater study, physically reexamined the area proposed for locating the pipeline, and subsequently presented evidence garnered from those endeavors to rebut the geologist's testimony. Based on that evidence and the engineering firm's initial studies of the area, the council ultimately determined that the firm's presentation regarding the safety of the pipeline's Parrett Mountain location was entitled to greater weight than the countervailing evidence presented by petitioners' geologist. That determination was within the purview of the council, and the evidence from which it was drawn would permit a reasonable person to make the same findings as those contained in the council's order. We therefore conclude that there was substantial evidence in the record that Northwest Natural's site certificate application met the structural standards imposed by OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(1).