Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
2023-155-Minutes for Meeting April 17,2023 Recorded 5/23/2023I011ES COG2,
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
OR $ a
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2023-155
Steve Dennison, County Clerk 05/23/2023 1:21:10 PM
Commissioners' Journal
2023-155
Aw
MONDAY April 17, 2023
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
Allen Room
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Patti Adair (via Zoom) and Phil Chang. Also present were
Nick Lelack, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Whitney Hale, Deputy
County Administrator; Dave Doyle, County Counsel; and Brenda Fritsvold, BOCC Executive Assistant.
Tills meeting was audio and video recorded and Can be accessed at thee Deschutes County
Meeting Portal website www.deschutes.org/meetings.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
CITIZEN INPUT: None
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Document No. 2023-382, rendering the Board's decision on the Thornburgh
Destination Resort's 2022 Fish & Wildlife Mitigation Plan Modification
Approval
Caroline House, Senior Planner, reviewed that in 2022, the developer of the
Thornburgh Resort ("Applicant") applied to replace the resort's 2008 Fish &
Wildlife Mitigation Plan (FWMP) with a new FWMP ("2022 FWMP"). After the
Hearings Officer denied the request, two appeals of the Hearings Officer's
decision were filed. Following an appeal hearing before the Board on February
1 ", the Board conducted deliberations on March 291h and voted 2-1 to approve
the Applicant's modification request. Additionally, the Board affirmed the
Applicant's appeal and denied the appeal filed by Annunziata Gould.
BOCC MEETING APRIL 17, 2023 PAGE 1 OF 5
2.
House presented a draft final decision of the Board for its consideration.
Commissioner Chang stated his belief that the Hearings Officer decision was well -
reasoned and said he did not support the draft decision as presented. He explained
his key concerns that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife opinion's on the
FWMP should be taken into consideration, and that the application does not provide
adequate assurance that mitigation water will be produced in the right places to
ensure no net loss of habitat.
Commissioner Adair asked that the draft decision be revised to refer to Lucius
Caldwell by the title of doctor throughout the document. House agreed to update
the document before it is signed.
Commissioner DeBone noted the matter of this appeal and decision only addresses
the new FWMP sought by the applicant. He said the revised FWMP appears to offer
net benefits for fish and wildlife habitat.
Commissioner Chang said the fact that a development has water rights does not
guarantee no net loss of habitat.
ADAIR: Move approval of Document No. 2023-382, rendering the Board's
decision on file/appeal nos. 247-22-000678-MC, 984-A, and
247-23-000003-A
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: No
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 1
Healthy Schools Program Update
Jessica Jacks, Prevention and Health Promotion Program Manager, and Aimee
Snyder, Healthy Schools Supervisor, were joined by Lora Nordquist, Sean
Reinhart and Dean Richards from the Bend -La Pine School District to provide an
update on the Healthy Schools Program. Jacks explained this program brings the
expertise of Public Health into schools for the purpose of addressing adolescent
suicide, alcohol and other drug use, vaping, social media, and pregnancy as well
as other conditions which may disconnect students from school. Jacks shared
examples of progress made since the program's launch, including that 95% of
the district's middle and high school Health teachers now use effective skills -
based Health curricula to address student health needs.
BOCC MEETING APRIL 17, 2023 PAGE 2 OF 5
Commissioner Chang referred to the budget decisions made two years ago to
enable this program and said it was exciting to see how the initial vision is
translating to true deliverables that help keep kids healthy.
Commissioner Adair asked if this program will help raise La Pine High School's low
graduation rate, which she found highly concerning. Richards spoke to the negative
effect of stress on mental health and said the school is conducting outreach with
families to help students stay or get back on track. Nordquist added that the school
is also attempting to promote regular attendance.
Commissioner Adair expressed her appreciation for the program and hoped that
future results will demonstrate its impact.
jacks concluded that Health Services will request to add one public health specialist
in the FY24 budget to serve Caldera High School with this program at a 50/50 cost
match with the district.
Commissioner Chang asked that the video from this presentation and discussion
along with the slide deck be shared with the Budget Committee.
OTHER ITEMS:
Commissioner DeBone served on the interview panel for the Central and
South -Central Oregon Regional Solutions Coordinator position with Governor
Kotek's Office. Other persons serving on the interview panel included Lake
County Commissioner Barry Shullanberger, Regional Solutions Director
Amelia Porterfield and Greg Svelund from the Department of Environmental
Quality.
Commissioner Chang asked about the delay of the planned presentation
from Central Oregon Veterans Outreach and the Bend Heroes Foundation on
the Veterans Village program. Commissioner DeBone explained his request
that these groups meet separately with Commissioners before a
presentation is made to the full Board, and said that Coordinated Houseless
Response Office (CHRO) Director Cheyenne Purrington should be involved in
these efforts as part of her work to manage homeless issues across the
county.
Commissioner Chang preferred that a presentation be made to the full
Board without separate meetings in advance. He disagreed that the CHRO
should be involved in the relationship between the Board and these
approved service providers.
Commissioner Adair noted that thanks to the Veterans Village program, 12
veterans have moved on to permanent housing over the last 17 months. She
BOCC MEETING APRIL 17, 2023 PAGE 3 OF 5
advised since enlarging the population increases the number of personality
disagreements between clients. She shared she is in regular contact with
these groups and stated her preference that they present their request to
the Board sooner rather than later.
• Commissioner Adair acknowledged and thanked recently retired Sunriver
Fire Chief Tim Moor.
• Commissioner Adair reported on a Health Council meeting in Jefferson
County in Madras on Thursday and said Jefferson County's health metrics are
the lowest in the state.
• Commissioner Adair shared items discussed at a COACT meeting last
Thursday, including the potential impact of requiring all -electric vehicles on
the trucking industry and the lack of infrastructure in Oregon to support such
a requirement.
• Commissioner DeBone described the route taken last Thursday on a
helicopter tour with Bend Mayor Melanie Kebler and other staff from the City
of Bend. He shared information from an Airport Committee meeting in
Redmond, including plans to redesign and improve the second floor of the
terminal.
• Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp reported that Cannabis Advisory
Panel member Joseph Stapleton has submitted his resignation.
A short break was announced at 4:12 pm; the meeting resumed at 4:17 pm.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At 4:17 p.m., the Board recessed into Executive Session regarding ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real
Property Negotiations. At 4:31 p.m., the Board came out of Executive Session to direct staff
to proceed as discussed.
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:31 p.m.
DATED this Day of 2023 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
ANTHONY:•
BOCC MEETING APRIL 17, 2023 PAGE 4 OF 5
ATTEST:
RECORDING SECRETARY
Au-
PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, CC4MISSIONER
BOCC MEETING APRIL 17, 2023 PAGE 5 OF 5
0T E S CMG
2� BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: April 17, 2023
SUBJECT: Document No. 2023-382, rendering the Board's decision on the Thornburgh
Destination Resort's 2022 Fish & Wildlife Mitigation Plan Modification Approval
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
Motion to approve Board Signature of Document No. 2023-382, rendering the Board's
decision on file/appeal nos. 247-22-000678-MC, 984-A, and 247-23-000003-A.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In August 2022, the developer of the Thornburgh Resort ("Applicant") applied for a
Modification request to replace the Resort's 2008 Fish & Wildlife Mitigation Plan (FWMP) with
a new FWMP ("2022 FWMP"). A Hearings Officer denied the Applicant's request;
subsequently, two of
appeals Cf the Hearings Offi-ar'S decision were rarai�ierl The BoardBoard
County Commissioners ("Board") agreed to hear the appeals and held a de novo appeal
hearing on February 1, 2023.
On March 29, 2023, the Board conducted deliberations and voted 2-1 to approve the
Applicant's Modification request. Additionally, the Board affirmed the Applicant's appeal
(Appeal no. 247-22-000984-A) and denied the appeal filed by Annunziata Gould (Appeal no.
247-23-000003-A). Based on the Board's deliberations, County staff developed a draft
decision for the Board's consideration.
The 1 SOth day on which the County must take final action on this review is April 17, 2023. For
this reason, staff is requesting the Board sign the decision at the meeting.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None.
ATTENDANCE:
Caroline House, Senior Planner
Anthony Raguine, Principal Planner
Legal Counsel
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FILE NUMBERS:
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
OWNERS/
APPLICANTS:
APPLICANT'S
ATTORNEYS:
STAFF CONTACT:
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A
The entiretv of the ThornburErh Destination Resort located at:
Address
Deschutes Co, Assessor
Map ;& Tax Lot Number
11800 Eagle Crest Blvd, Redmond, OR 97756
15-12-00, TL 5000
11810 Eagle Crest Blvd, Redmond, OR 97756
15-12-00, TL 5001
11820 Eagle Crest Blvd, Redmond, OR 97756
15-12-00, TL 5002
67205 Cline Falls Rd, Redmond, OR 97756
15-12-00, TL 7700
67705 Cline Falls Rd, Redmond, OR 97756
15-12-00, TL 7701
67555 Cline Falls Rd, Redmond, OR 97756
15-12-00, TL 7800
67525 Cline Falls Rd, Redmond, OR 97756
15-12-00, TL 7801 *
67545 Cline Falls Rd, Redmond, OR 97756
15-12-00, TL 7900
67400 Barr Rd, Redmond, OR 97756
15-12-00, TL 8000**
* A portion of this tax lot is not included in the FMP.
** Portions of this tax lot are not included in the FMP.
Central Land & Cattle Company, LLC, Kameron DeLashmutt,
Pinnacle Utilities, LLC (collectively "Applicant")
J. Kenneth Katzaroff - Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
Liz Fancher - Attorney at Law
Caroline House, Senior Planner - Deschutes County
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q, (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org/cd
RECORD: The official record was maintained by Deschutes County and
accessible online through a project -specific website at:
https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-22-000678-mc-
thornburgh-destination-resort-modification-cmpfmpfwmp
PROPOSAL: Applicant seeks to modify a discrete aspect of its final master plan
("FMP") approval, namely the mitigation measures found in its 2008
Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan ("FWMP"). Applicant also seeks to
modify FMP conditions to reflect that change and ensure
compliance with the new 2022 FWMP. The proposal is referred to
as the "Application."
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code ("DCC")
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.113, Destination Resorts Zone
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance:
Chapter 22.04, Introduction & Definitions
Chapter 22.08, General Provisions
Chapter 22.20, Review of Land Use Action Procedures
Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
Chapter 22.36, Limitation on Approvals
11. BASIC FINDINGS
As described below (see Resort Land Use History), the Thornburgh Destination Resort
("Thornburgh" or the "Resort") has been litigated for nearly 20 years. During that time period,
the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") has heard numerous appeals related to the
Resort. The current Application seeks to modify a discrete supporting document to the
Resort's FMP. However, multiple parties have raised additional issues that are either outside
of the scope of the Application, are not relevant approval criteria, have already been decided
in prior proceedings and are binding, or otherwise do not provide a basis for denial of the
Application. These arguments are addressed in detail in Exhibit A, which is expressly
adopted as part of this decision and is meant to supplement the findings herein.
When referenced and unless otherwise noted the "Staff Report" refers to the Staff Report
issued by Caroline House on October 17, 2022, in advance of the public hearing before the
Hearings Officer.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 2 of 36
A. Lot of Record
The Subject Property has been verified as a legal lot(s) of record in previous land use
decisions including the Board's 2006 decision approving the Resort's CMP.
B. Location and Site Description
The Thornburgh Destination Resort ("Thornburgh" or "Resort) is comprised of, generally, a
large tract of land +/-1,970 acres in size and includes several tax lots as identified above. The
Subject Property is approximately 3 miles west-southwest of the City of Redmond. The
Subject Property includes variable topography, native vegetation, rock outcroppings and
ridge tops. At this time, the Subject Property is largely undeveloped land. However, the
Applicant has started construction of access roads, other infrastructure improvements (i.e.,
community water system, community sewer system, etc.), and a golf course pursuant to final
land use approvals. In addition, the Applicant has applied for and been granted building
permits for utility facilities with additional permits pending. The southeastern corner of the
subject property is bisected by Cline Falls Road and Barr Road bisects the southwest corner
of the Resort tract.
C. Resort Land Use History
The hearings officer adequately captured the prior land use history related to the Resort.
Since the hearings officer made his decision, two additional decisions were denied review by
the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Gould v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2022-013, June 1, 2022), aff'd 322 Or App
11 (2022) ("Gould OLU"), rev den, _ Or _ (S069882).
Gould v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2022-011), off'd without op, 322 Or App
383, rev den, _ Or _ (S069813).
D. Public Agency Comments
The Staff Report contained a summary of public agency comments submitted into the record
as of the date of that Staff Report. Additional comments from the Oregon Department of
Fish & Wildlife ("ODFW") were received during the appeal hearing before the Board and are
addressed under relevant findings and in Exhibit A.
E. Public Comments, Testimony, and Record Submissions
As with any Thornburgh application, robust public participation occurred throughout the
review of the Application. Among other participating parties, the Confederated Tribes of the
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 3 of 36
Warm Springs Reservation ("Tribe")' presented testimony and evidence on the application.
Relevant testimony is addressed under relevant findings and in Exhibit A.
F. Review Period and Procedure
The hearings officer detailed the proceeding before him. Both Thornburgh and Appellant
Gould appealed his decision, and the Board accepted de novo review. After a hearing on
February 1, 2023 before the Board, the open record period was left open for 14-days until
February 15, 2023. Following a joint request of the Applicant and the Tribe, the open record
period was extended until March 1, 2023. A rebuttal period was allowed consistent with the
original record procedure for seven days until March 8, 2023 with final legal argument due
on March 15, 2023. The Board issued an order updating these time periods.
After the Board's deliberations and vote on March 29, 2023, the Applicant agreed in writing
to extend the clock to April 17, 2023. Accounting for all waived time agreed to by the
Applicant, the County's 150-day clock is set to expire on April 17, 2023.
G. Summary of Application
The Applicant seeks to replace the 2008 FWMP document with an updated 2022 FWMP.2 A
copy of the proposed 2022 FWMP in its final form is attached as Exhibit B.' The Board
understands that this is the final document and has imposed a condition of approval that
requires compliance with this document. The 2022 FWMP relies on Condition 39 of the FMP
(TSID mitigation project) to achieve compliance with the no net loss/degradation standard of
DCC 18.113.070(D)4 for Whychus Creek. The Whychus Creek supplement to the 2008 FWMP
is not modified by the 2022 FWMP.
The Applicant, in response to concerns expressed in the hearings officer's decision, also
asked the Board to modify FMP Condition 38 and to impose a new FMP Condition 40 to clarify
what constitutes compliance with the 2022 FWMP.
1 The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation refer to themselves as the "Tribe" and so
we do the same.
2 The 2008 FWMP is comprised of two documents, the April 21, 2008 Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan
Addendum Relating to Potential Impacts of Ground Water Withdrawals on Fish Habitat and the August
11, 2008 letter from attorney Martha Pagel committing to take certain actions related to Whychus
Creek.
3 During the Board's deliberations on March 29, 2023, Commissioner DeBone identified typographical
errors to be corrected on pages 9, 20 and 21. The revised Exhibit B, which includes those minor
revisions identified on the record, is attached hereto.
4 All references to "no net loss" refer to the legal standard of DCC 18.113.070(D) and include
degradation of the resource.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 4 of 36
Current FMP Condition 38: "[Thornburgh] shall abide by the April 2008 Wildlife Mitigation
Plan, the August 2008 Supplement, and all agreements with the ELM and ODFW for
management of offsite mitigation efforts. Consistent with the plan, [Thornburgh] shall
submit an annual report to the county detailing mitigation activities that have occurred over
the previous year. The mitigation measures include removal of existing wells on the subject
property, and coordination with ODFW to model stream temperatures in Whychus Creek."
Proposed Revised FMP Condition 38: "Thornburgh shall abide by the April 2008 Wildlife
Mitigation Plan (excluding the April 21, 2008 FWMP addendum to that plan and its
addenda)("Terrestrial WMP"), and all agreements with the BLM and ODFW for management
of offsite mitigation efforts required by the Terrestrial WMP. Consistent with the plan,
Thornburgh shall submit an annual report to the county detailing mitigation activities that
have occurred over the previous year."
Proposed NEW FMP Condition 40: Thornburgh shall comply with the 2022 Fish and Wildlife
Mitigation Plan, including its compliance and reporting mechanisms found in Section II of
that plan.
H. Standard of Review - Substantial Evidence
Before addressing specific applicable criteria, the Board notes that the standard it must
review the evidence under is the "substantial evidence" standard. Substantial evidence is
evidence a reasonable person would rely on in drawing inferences and reaching a decision.
City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 298 Or 104, 119, 690 P2d 475 (1984). Substantial
evidence includes, but is not limited to: staff reports/statements by staff, expert testimony
addressing relevant issues, and technical reports. See, e.g. Scott v. City of Portland, 17 Or LUBA
197, 202 (1988); Oberdorfer v. Harney County, 64 OR LUBA 47, 50-51 (2011); Boucot v. City of
Corvallis, 64 Or LUBA 131, 138-39 (2011). Bare assertions are not substantial evidence, and
LUBA will affirm a county's decision where opponents cite to no evidence in the record to
support their assertions. See Comden v. Coos County, 56 Or LUBA 214, 228 (2008). Additionally,
when it comes to technical questions something more than lay testimony is necessary to
rebut an expert's testimony, and 'mere statement of a party's attorney does not provide the
required evidentiary foundation necessary to support conclusions regarding such technical
questions. See, e.g., Oregon Coast Alliance v. City of Brookings, 72 Or LUBA 222, 232-33 (2015).
In many instances, as have been discussed in Exhibit A or below, project opponents and
commentators have chosen not to provide technical evidence and, instead, simply critique
matters of statewide water policy or the conclusions of Thornburgh's technical evidence. The
Board is bound to make its decision based upon evidence in the record and if the Board
determines that the Applicant's evidence is more persuasive and credible than opponents'
evidence in showing compliance with applicable law, the Board must approve an application.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 5 of 36
The technical expertise provided by Thornburgh's team is vast. We agree with the hearings
officer that Thornburgh's technical evidence was prepared by credentialed experts who
provided an extreme level of analysis and detail. Additionally, Thornburgh's team of experts
includes a hydrogeologist with significant experience working in analyzing waterways in the
Deschutes Basin and hydrologists who have completed water quality studies of the
Deschutes River for private and governmental clients, including the Tribe.. The Board finds
that Appellant Gould's experts are less credible and not nearly as comprehensive or
experienced. For example, Appellant Gould's attorneys (Ms. Bragar and Mr. Anuta) are not
technical experts. And, while Mr. Lambie may be a CWRE and engineer, he is not a fish
biologist, nor does he have any wildlife or habitat -related credentials. The opposite is true
for Thornburgh's slate of experts, which include PH.ds in biology with special certifications in
fisheries. See Table 2: Comparison of Experts. We find that the resumes included related to
the Thornburgh's experts are persuasive as to their subject matter and technical expertise.
Similarly, most arguments or issues raised by ODFW and the Tribe related to the 2022 FWMP
meeting the no net loss standard do not present biological or habitat related argument; they
raise issues related to statewide water policy. This is addressed further below and in Exhibit
A.
Takla ?• Cnmmrknn ri Fxrk-rt TF—dirnmv
I
ODFW Expert
Gould's Expert
Tribes Expert
Subject
Tharnburgh Expert Testimony
Testimony
Testimony
Testimony
Dr. Efelfle Vache, Ph.D, Water Resource
Engineering. Has over20yrs experince,
has modeledthe Lower, Middle and
Upper Deschutes and Lovter Crooked
Rivers and authored 60scientific journals,
articles, orb ooks.
Mr. Joe Eilers, Master of Science in
Water Qualiity Management wf over 40
years of experience. A hydrologist who
has authored 40 scientific journals and
completed modeling on the Lower,
Middle and Upper Deschutes River
Dr. Pradeegr Mugunthan, Ph. D; Cavil $c
Environmental Engineering with 20yrs of
experience. He is an expert at modeling
groundwater -surface water interactions
and made ling the effectsof flow and
water qualitychanges on aquatic habitat.
He has authored 14 scientific papers,
journals or publications.
DDFW provided no
expert testimony
on vrater in aml
respect.
Mr. Lambie
provided memo
from E-Pur that
dealt with
elements of the
GSFlow modeling
The Tribes
provided no
expert testimony
on water in amr
respect.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 6 of 36
Water
Rights &
Mitigation
Program
Mr. Jim Newton, Certified Water Rights
Examiner, Registered Geologist,
Registered Engineer. Oar 2Dyears of
experience with groundwater and related
elements in the Deschutes Basin.
ODFW provided no
expert test! many
on water rights or
the OWRD
mitigation rules.
Mr. John Lambie,
Certified Water
Rights Examiner,on
Registered
Geologist.
The Tribes
provided no
expert testimony
water rights or
the OAdRD
mitigation rules.
Dr. Lucius Caldwell, Ph. D. Biological
Mr. Gerald
Sciences, and Certified Fisheries
George, ODFW
Professional wj13 ym of experience
District Fish
regardingthe instream flow andfish
Biologist.
Fish and
habitat disciplines, and has designed, led,
Unaware of any
NONE
NONE
Fish Habitat
or participated in dozens of studies and
specific education
pr*ctsfocusingonPacificsalmonids.
but have assumed
Mr. Joe Eil'ers, in additionto his expertise
Mr. George has
on water quality listed above Mr. Eilers is
such for ish.
a Certified Fisheries Biologist, and a
Certified Lake Manager.
Dr.Tim Deboodt, Ph. D. Natural
Resource Manager forCrook County.
�
Formerly with OSU Extension service.
NONE
NONE
NONE
Leading expert on Juniper trees and the
re at bn t o s urf ace an d g roun d wate r
resources.
III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
Where relevant, the Board specifically incorporates and adopts additional findings found in
Exhibit A hereto.
All parties appear to agree that the most relevant criterion related to the Application is found
at DCC 18.113.070(D) which provides that in order to approve a destination resort substantial
evidence must be provided that "any negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be
completely mitigated so that there is no net loss or net degradation of the resource." This is
referred to as the "No Net Loss Standard." It is undisputed that the 2008 FWMP met that
standard.'
Because the No Net Loss Standard is the most relevant to this Application, we address it first.
5 The 2008 FWMP only dealt with mitigation related to water habitat and was not intended to address
terrestrial habitat. Terrestrial habitat is addressed through a separate plan that is not disturbed by
the current Application.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 7 of 36
A. DCC 18.113.070 Approval Criteria
In order to approve a destination resort, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall
find from substantial evidence in the record that:
D. Any negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be completely
mitigated so that there is no net loss or net degradation of the resource.
For all of the reasons described below and in Exhibit A, the Board finds that the Application
meets the No Net Loss Standard.
Thornburgh provided a substantial amount of technical analysis and reports that we find
persuasive. Of note, included in the technical analysis was a comprehensive summary of the
impacts on fish habitat by Lucius Caldwell, PhD, FP-C, who concluded: "In conclusion, the
findings presented above indicate that the combination of planned groundwater pumping at
Thornburgh Resort, and the associated mitigation planned to offset this pumping as described in
the 2022 Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan (NCI 2008; Newton 2022), appear to be a net benefit for
both fish habitat quantity and quality at all sites evaluated and would result in no net loss offish
habitat quantity or quality."The Board finds that statement is, while not determinative in the
outcome of this case, relevant and persuasive. While Appellant Gould, ODFW, the Tribe, and
others raised concerns regarding conformance with this standard, the Board finds the
Applicant's experts provided more persuasive evidence and testimony. For these reasons,
the Board finds this criterion will be met.
Interpreting the Scope of the No Net Loss Provision
The Court of Appeals has previously interpreted the scope of the No Net Loss Standard. See
Gould v. Deschutes County, 233 Or App 623, 633 (2010). That decision found that the standard
"may be satisfied by a plan that will completely mitigate any impact on the habitat that
supports fish and wildlife, without showing that each individual species will be maintained
or replaced on a one-to-one basis."
As it relates to that standard, the 2008 FWMP was found to meet the No Net Loss Standard
despite showing temperature increases in certain stretches of the Deschutes River of up to
an increase of 0.1 degree C, with an average increase in temperature of 0.07-degree C6. Here,
the evidence provided by Thornburgh through vast quantities of technical data, modeling,
and reports, shows that Thornburgh's 2022 FWMP increases flows and decreases
temperature, an average of (0.01 degree C), which improves fisheries habitat quality and
6 Thornburgh's 2022 FWMP results in reduced temperatures versus increased temperatures in the
2008 plan that were found to meet the No Net Loss Standard.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 8 of 36
quantity. Extensive technical analysis was completed on the Deschutes River, the Crooked
River and Whychus Creek, that included: i) complete modeling of surface water flows
resulting from changes to groundwater discharge in the 2022 FWMP using the USGS GSFIow
model, ii) detailed analysis of the thermal impacts resulting from the changes in flow using
the QUAL2Kw model, iii) analysis of changes in flow and temperature, employing both
GSFIow and QUAL2Kw in 7 specific spring locations requested by ODFW, iv) further detailed
thermal modeling of specific locations around springs in Whychus Creek, v) an analysis of
the effects on fish habitat in each of 3 water ways, followed by a Comprehensive Summary
of the 2022 FWMP as it pertains to fish habitat. In addition to his conclusions on the entire
plan quoted above, Dr. Caldwell assessed the individual streams reaching the following
conclusions on each of the following streams:
Deschutes River: "Overall, the combined effects of planned groundwater pumping and
mitigation appear to be a net benefit for both habitat quantity and quality within the Deschutes
River, throughout the vast majority of the irrigation season."
Crooked River: "Overall, the combined effects of planned groundwater pumping and
mitigation appear to vary seasonally within the Crooked River. During the spring and fall, a net
impact is expected for fish habitat quantity and a net benefit for fish habitat quality. During the
summer, a net benefit is expected for fish habitat quantity and a net impact for fish habitat
quality."
Whychus Creek: "Overall, the combined effects of planned groundwater pumping and
mitigation appear to be a net benefit for both fish habitat quantity and quality within Whychus
Creek, throughout the vast majority of the irrigation season."
Little Deschutes River: Overall, the effects of planned groundwater pumping and
mitigation appear to be one of a habitat quantity benefit throughout the irrigation season, and
variable, very small impacts or benefits to habitat quality that vary throughout the irrigation
season.
Dr. Caldwell's report was submitted during the open record period. There was no response
in the rebuttal period provided by a biologist related to habitat impacts to rebut his report.
No party provided persuasive evidence to rebut his findings.
The modeled negative impacts are so small as to be immeasurable and of no biological significance
and are far less than the 0.1 degree increase that was previously determined to meet the standard
when it approved the 2008 FWMP.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 9 of 36
According to the science and technical reports, there is generally no scientific or biological
significance in the impacts$ under the 2022 FWMP and, as a whole, the plan provides benefits
to habitat for fish and aquatic species. Given this context, we find that the 2022 FWMP plan
meets the No Net Loss Standard.
Nothing in the No Net Loss Standard or our previous application of it requires that
Thornburgh receive "approval" from ODFW. In fact, as recently as 2018, this Board declined
to impose additional mitigation requirements proposed by ODFW related to other
destination resorts. While FMP Condition 38 adopted in 2008 requires Thornburgh to abide
by all agreements with the BLM and ODFW for management of offsite mitigation efforts,
ODFW advised the County's hearings officer that there are no such agreements regarding
the 2008 FWMP and the BLM agreement is an MOU that also does not relate to the 2008
FWMP. The Board agrees with the hearings officer that ODFW's comments are relevant, but
we find that the evidence provided by the Applicant is more persuasive in establishing that
the No Net Loss Standard is met. Likewise, the Tribe's comments were considered but Tribe
approval of the 2022 FWMP is not required.
a) Drought and Outside Impacts
Many of the arguments and issues related to Thornburgh's 2022 FWMP are related to
drought and regional well decline. Opponents assert that these are relevant issues and
should lead to denial. We disagree. The No Net Loss Standard requires a resort to mitigate
its own impacts, not the cumulative impacts of drought or other basin -wide water policy and
management issues. The No Net Loss/degradation test is limited to addressing potential
negative impacts of resort development. Impacts to habitat caused by other persons or
environmental conditions are not attributable to Thornburgh's use of water or the impacts
of Thornburgh's use.
Thornburgh has quantified its impacts on water quality and quantity and the locations where
these impacts will occur. It has studied waterway conditions in a typical year, and it has also
provided expert evidence that shows the benefits of mitigation are enhanced during periods
of drought. This approach properly accounts for issues of drought and the low flow
conditions opponents argue make the results of Thornburgh's expert analysis of aquatic
habitat unreliable.
Opponents, ODFW, and the Tribe have also raised issues that pending litigation regarding
flow requirements and the Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") related to the Spotted Frog
may lead to additional constraints on live flows. These issues are outside of the scope of the
Thornburgh's impacts and Thornburgh is not required to mitigate for them. Thornburgh
8 Substantial evidence shows that virtually all flow and temperature changes, while mostly beneficial,
are too small to measure with equipment currently available. Even ODFW notes that impacts to the
Crooked River, for example, are "noise."
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 10 of 36
must mitigate for its impacts, alone. Further, Thornburgh's plan relies primarily upon
groundwater water sources, and its technical analysis shows that the 2022 FWMP will result
in increased surface flows which are beneficial to fish and wildlife. Thornburgh has also
provided expert testimony that its plan will not result in negative impacts to the spotted frog,
which we find persuasive.
b) Regional Well Decline
A large amount of testimony was received regarding regional well declines. This issue has no
bearing on whether Thornburgh mitigates its own water use to ensure no net loss or
degradation of habitat. Furthermore, the 2022 FWMP requires a significant reduction in the
amount of groundwater that may be pumped by the Resort.
2. No Net Loss Standard does not Prescribe Methods; Water Policy Issues
Appellant Gould, ODFW, the Tribe, and others all assert that the only way to meet the No Net
Loss Standard is through "legally protected" instream water - and more particularly, that
legal protection can only occur by providing an instream transfer. We do not agree. OWRD
has established mitigation rules for the Deschutes Basin which include several different
methods of providing legally protected flows. See e.g., OAR 690-505-0605; OAR 690-505-0610.
Additionally, other actions may also achieve compliance with the No Net Loss test, as
demonstrated by ODFW's approval of the Eagle Crest mitigation plan that involves the
acquisition and nonuse of Swalley Irrigation District water rights and pumping of some of
the rights in a different, more environmentally beneficial location. In reality, the arguments
made by opponents relate primarily to issues related to water policy and management, an
issue outside of our control and under the sole discretion of OWRD.
Here, many of the issues raised are related to OWRD requirements and have little to nothing
to do with Thornburgh. For example, ODFW argues that ORS 537.270 does not assure water
is actually available. However, that statute specifically provides to the contrary. In particular,
ODFW takes issue with the "reliability" of certain water rights included in the 2022 FWMP.
ODFW asserts that unless Thornburgh can show that the water right has been used to its full
extent for 8 of the past 10 years, then any benefit it provides under the 2022 FWMP should
not accrue or should be substantially discounted (to 20% of the water right) because the
water is already remaining in stream instead of being used. That position is devoid of merit.
Testimony to this record makes it clear that no "new" water rights are being created in the
Deschutes Basin; all water use must already be certificated or mitigated for by retiring
existing rights. This means that if Thornburgh does not use the water rights, it is reasonable
to assume they will be sold and used by someone else.' They do not just remain in stream.
9 Multiple parties testified that the Tree Farm water right acquired by Thornburgh underwent
competitive bidding processes, with multiple buyers vying for the water right, and so that right could
have been used by others.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 11 of 36
Moreover, Oregon water law only requires use to the full appropriation once every five years.
ODFW's subjective discounting of water rights is not consistent with the law. There is no
factual basis for applying a discount to any water rights and no actual relationship to the
efficacy of the proposed mitigation.
Opponents, ODFW, and the Tribe claim on one hand that groundwater discharge is
important to them to protect fisheries habitat, but when presented with the 2022 FWMP that
is focused on the direct restoration of groundwater to replace reduced groundwater
discharge, they question the "transfer strategy" and how it provides benefits. Several
comments claimed it was complex, or too difficult to understand, but this is due to the fact
the issues are ones that must be addressed by qualified experts. Thornburgh stated that the
2022 FWMP is based on simple, well -established principles that provide in -kind mitigation,
largely increasing cool groundwater discharge to replace the loss of the same, and, replacing
the groundwater discharges in -proximity to where the impacts would occur, and doing so in
advance of when any pumping occurs. We concur with the Applicant and find the Applicant's
technical analysis to be persuasive.
Thornburgh provided expert testimony from its CWRE, as well as expert technical analysis in
the form of temperature and flow information that transferring the proposed water
(following the 2022 FWMP) would result in additional flows and cooling temperatures,
generally. There was scant technical rebuttal to Thornburgh's expert testimony. Ms. Gould's
consultant, Mr. Lambie submitted technical reports including flow information on the
Crooked River, also derived from the USGS GSFIow model; the same model relied upon by
Thornburgh's expert. Mr. Lambie's technical information confirmed what Thornburgh's
experts stated, that there was a reduction in flow, although slight on the Crooked River. Mr.
Lambie provided no opposing data pertaining to the changes in flow in any other reach,
which are largely areas Thornburgh's expert analysis showed increased flow. Although
ODFW challenged Thornburgh's analysis in a submission dated March 1, 2023, Thornburgh
responded to ODFW, stating that its submission was based on erroneous information in time
for ODFW to rebut Thornburgh's analysis The Board finds that, without further rebuttal from
ODFW, there was no accurate technical analysis of the thermal impacts or expert testimony
provided on such by any commenting party. And, as noted above, there was no rebuttal or
expert testimony disputing Dr. Caldwell's summary of the effects on fish habitat. We find this
information to be persuasive.
We note that some commentators criticize water law and OWRD on one hand and rely on it
in others.10 For example, in ODFW's March Vt letter, it takes issue with OWRD's water
management and existing water law. At the same time, it claims that a single method of
mitigation allowed by the Deschutes Basin Groundwater Program—instream water
10 Although we only specifically address ODFW's comments here, many other commenters argued that
the only method of mitigation that is efficacious is instream water rights that are transferred to a
governmental entity. That is not the law.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 12 of 36
transfers —is the only acceptable form of mitigation and that it must be discounted by 20%
in certain circumstances. This sort of consultation and comment is unhelpful as it implies a
bias to only specific measures and rejection of all others without addressing the overall
technical or scientific impacts of other measures that also provide habitat benefits. As
discussed above, Thornburgh pointed out that many of the factual assertions that underlay
ODFW's March 1 s' letter were incorrect and it sent its comments to ODFW directly before the
rebuttal period closed. ODFW did not respond or correct its assertions that led to its
recommendation. The Board's concludes that Thornburgh's evidence and testimony is more
reliable and credible than that of ODFW.
Nothing in our No Net Loss Standard prescribes any specific method to meet it. Thornburgh
has prescribed measures in its 2022 FWMP which result in meeting the No Net Loss Standard
for aquatic habitat alone, as testified to by multiple technical experts of various disciplines.
The 2022 FWMP describes that Thornburgh, who already owns approximately 1,211 acre-
feet of water rights, intends to use those rights in a variety of ways to grant it the right to
pump water at the Resort, each of which their experts claim will provide similar benefits. The
different methods of use include:
a) Transferring the water rights from their existing points of
appropriation to wells at the Thornburgh Resort,
b) Transferring the surface water rights to instream water rights,
and
c) Cancelling the water right in -lieu of mitigation.
Opponents, ODFW, and the Tribe claim that (b) is the only acceptable method to achieve the
No Net Loss Standard. Thornburgh provided substantial evidence that all three methods
were appropriate and acceptable. Mr. Anuta, Gould's attorney and others claim that there is
no "Cancellation in -lieu of Mitigation" program or claimed cancelling water rights would not
protect the water instream, and that anyone else (more junior user) could simply grab the
water so there is no benefit. Thornburgh's experts disputed those claims. Mr. Lambie,
Gould's expert, provided testimony that the formal name for what applicant refers to as
cancellation in -lieu of mitigation is the "Offset Voluntary Mitigation Option" which is an
acceptable form of mitigation and, as the evidence shows, does result in protected instream
water under the OWRD mitigation rules. OAR 690-505-0610. We find Thornburgh's experts
to be knowledgeable and reliable. Further, we find Thornburgh's experts to be more
persuasive than those of the opponents, ODFW and the Tribe.
3. Water Law vs. the No Net Loss Standard
Opponents, ODFW and the Tribe have expressed concern over what they see as
shortcomings between OWRD water law and the No Net Loss standard, i.e.: that water law
will not ensure compliance with the No Net Loss Standard. At the same time the opponents,
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 13 of 36
ODFW, and the Tribe raise concerns about the shortcomings of water law, they argue that,
of the Applicant's three proposed water rights transfer methods, only transferring the
surface water rights to instream water rights complies with ensures the No Net Loss
Standard. We find that the Applicant has shown that Oregon water law and additional
assurances in its 2022 FWMP will be reasonably likely to achieve compliance with the No Net
Loss Standard.
4. ODFW Reliability of Water Rights
As noted above, ODFW disagrees with elements of OWRD water law and desires to create a
new standard related to the reliability of water rights that is outside of typical water law,
particularly for these Thornburgh proceedings" and to impose that standard on
Thornburgh. This could put Deschutes County in the position of determining aspects of
water law that have been delegated to OWRD and not to counties. We decline to take that
approach. Thornburgh has provided substantial evidence of pumping records, aerial photos,
affidavits of use for individual water rights that indicate substantial use and that rights will
provide actual benefits to impacted waterways. Additionally, as Thornburgh has pointed out,
ORS 537.270 directly relates to whether certificated water rights are evidence of water
priority and appropriation or use. We find that where Thornburgh has (or is planning to use)
certificated or permitted water that the amount of appropriation, duty and priority govern
here. We find that Thornburgh's water rights are "reliable" for the purpose of complying with
the No Net Loss Standard.
The Board finds that, with respect to arguments that the Applicant's water rights cannot be
considered reliable and/or "wet water," the County cannot second-guess OWRD's
determinations concerning the legality of water rights and/or the current status of those
rights for which the Applicant is requesting transfers. We find that the proposed water rights
that will be used for the Resort's water supply and mitigation are reasonably certain to be
approved for transfer by ODFW.
5. Compliance with the 2022 FWMP
The hearings officer faulted Thornburgh for not providing clearer compliance requirements.
ODFW also expressed similar concerns. The hearings officer cited compliance language in
Thornburgh's burden of proof in questioning whether that should or should not be included.
That language provided the basis for the addition of compliance language in the amended
FWMP. Thornburgh provided language for a proposed condition 40 to enforce compliance.
"There is no evidence that shows ODFW has requested any similar rules for any other resort projects
in Deschutes County.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 14 of 36
In addition, there were concerns the 2022 FWMP would create conflict with existing FMP
Condition 38. The Board finds it appropriate to revise Condition 38 as detailed below. Both
conditions are below and are imposed:
Revised FMP Condition 38: "Thornburgh shall abide by the April 2008 Wildlife Mitigation Plan
(excluding the April 21, 2008 FWMP addendum to that plan and its addenda)("Terrestrial
WMP"), and all agreements with the BLM and ODFW for management of offsite mitigation
efforts required by the Terrestrial WMP. Consistent with the plan, Thornburgh shall submit
an annual report to the county detailing mitigation activities that have occurred over the
previous year.
FMP Condition 40: Thornburgh shall comply with the 2022 Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan,
including its compliance and reporting mechanisms found in Section II of that plan.
The Board finds that the 2022 FWMP ensures ongoing compliance with the No Net Loss
Standard and sufficient monitoring is required by the 2022 FWMP and FMP Condition 40.
6. Advance Mitigation
Thornburgh has secured, by purchase, all of the water rights described in the 2022 FWMP.
The rights will not be pumped regardless of the outcome of transfers or other actions. If a
transfer is not approved, the mitigation water created by the cessation of pumping the water
right WIII 5t1•II provide actual
benefits to JtCdrnflow , and aquatic Ilia bitdt. in addition, the
evidence shows that Thornburgh has ceased pumping all the water, leaving it available for
habitat benefits.. Thornburgh has been providing this benefit under the individual right, in
some cases, for more than a decade. The Board is not relying upon the advance mitigation
for the Applicant to demonstrate the No Net Loss Standard at this time.
7. Whychus Creek
Whychus Creek was the subject of intense litigation that was resolved with the approval of
the FMP. The FMP required mitigation into Whychus Creek by restoring 1.51 cfs (a minimum
of 106 acre-feet) of conserved water from the Three Sister Irrigation District. The Whychus
Creek mitigation is final and past all appeals. As there is no change to this segment of the
FWMP, any attack against the plan is an impermissible collateral attack on the FMP. Further,
the evidence shows that Thornburgh has completed the requirements pertaining to the
Whychus Creek Mitigation and that the water has been permanently transferred instream.
Lastly, Thornburgh is canceling the Dutch Pacific water right that will provide additional
groundwater discharge to Whychus Creek.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 15 of 36
8. Reduction of Water Consumption.
Thornburgh has taken the substantial step to reduce its water consumption by roughly 35%.
This in turn reduces all impacts on stream flows and leaves more water in the regional
aquifer. As Thornburgh stated, it reduced water use in direct response to opponents' calls to
do so. This is a positive action.
9. Other Beneficial Actions
The 2022 FWMP contains mitigation measures the applicant plans to undertake that provide
mitigation over and above what is required to comply with the No Net Loss Standard ("extra
measures"). The Board has not relied on these excess measures to find that the 2022 FWMP
complies with the No Net Loss standard. If it is necessary in the future to rely on extra
measures to demonstrate compliance with the No Net Loss standard, the merits of these
measures may be reviewed at that time. The following table, Table 1, identifies required and
additional mitigation measures:
Table 1: Chart of Mitigation
A. Benefits calculated to meet compliance with no net loss
#
Groundwater
AF Type Ownership
Mit Acton Date
1
BFR Deep Canyon - Terrebonne
614.8 Irrigation TRC
Thomburgh stopped pumping leaving water 2022
2
BFR Groundwater - Terrebonne
18.9 Irrigation TRC
in aquifer to be discharged via seeps and 2021
3
Dutch Pacific - Sisters
49.5 Irrigation TRC
springs into the river as noted in the GSFIow 2019
4
Tree Farm - Bend
327.5 Quasi -Muni TRC
& QUAL2Kw modeling. 2021
Surface water
In 2021 Thornburgh placed water temp.
instream. In 2022 provided water to NUID.
5
LeBeau - LaPine
200 Irrigation TRC
Will do temp transfer instream in 2023. 2021
Water will increase flow from P0D to LBC.
Permanent transfer pending.
Permanent Instream
Transfer of 151 cfs accomplished by
6
TSID Sisters-1.51 cfs
Conserved
106 canal piping. Funding for project provided by Thornburgh. 2012
Water
Project is complete satisfying Condition 39.
Total
1316.71 NOTE: Provides a net benefit to fish habitat, quality and quantity.
B. Benefits not included in compliance with no net loss (extra)
#
Other Mitigation
I Action
Date Benefit
Provide mit water before pumping or
Leaving water 24,654 AF (1-6 above) in the
7
Provide mitigation in advance of
before impacts are realized in stream
2012 on aquifer or stream prior to impacts benefits
creating impacts
flow.
fish habitat, equals 17 yrs of pumping
Up to 912 AF of water savings will improve
8
Juniper Thinning on Thornburgh and
Thin Juniper trees on 1,000 of acres of
2024-2039 soil moisture, planting and groundwater
BLM Land Redmond
BLM and Thornburgh Lands.
recharge
Clear Juniper in cooperation with
Clear and remove 1,050 acres of
210 AF of water savings will improve soil
9
Crooked River Watershed Council
Juniper in Crooked River Watershed
2029 2038 moisture, planting, groundwater recharge
Fund $5,000 for nitrogen study in
Determine cause of Nitrogen levels in river
10
Fund CRWC Nitrogen study
2024 to create options to reduce nitrogen in
cooperation with the CRWC
order to improve fish habitat.
River restoration &riparian
Will provide over $400,0D0 for riparian
improve fish habitat throughout 11
11
Crooked
improvements w/CRWC
&restoration action in the lower
20242033 .Will
miles of the lower Crooked River.
Crooked River
12
DRC mitigation Credits
Provided 6 AF of DRC mitigation credits
2103 on Provides 6 AF of stream flow
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 16 of 36
10. Other Issues and Comments.
There were numerous other comments and issues raised. Applicant has created a chart
included as Exhibit A that is incorporated into this decision.
Ultimately, we find that Thornburgh's 2022 FWMP meets the No Net Loss Standard. We find
that the required measures identified in the 2022 FWMP are reasonably likely to succeed.
Gould v. Deschutes County, 233 Or App 623, 227 P3d 758 (2010).11
K. Adequate water will be available for all proposed uses at the destination
resort based upon the water study and a proposed water conservation plan
Water use will not reduce the availability of water in the water impact areas
identified in the water study considering existing uses and potential
development previously approved in the affected area Water sources shall
not include any perched water table. Water shall only be taken from the
regional aquifer. Where a perched water table is pierced to access the regional
aquifer, the well must be sealed off from the perched water table.
Opponents argue that Thornburgh has no water right; that G-17036 has expired or is no
longer valid; or that water is otherwise unavailable such that the current Application must
be denied. The Board finds that the G-17036 water right status was settled by approval of
the FMP and subsequent Thornburgh Site Plan and Tentative Plan approvals, which have
been adopted by LUBA and affirmed by appellate courts. The Board also finds that
compliance with DCC 18.113.070(K) is addressed by FMP Condition 1013, which is not
implicated in a review of the FWMP, as the Applicant continues to rely on G-17036 for the
Resort's water source. Furthermore, CMP Condition 37 (now met) required that the applicant
"demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.113.070(D) by submitting a wildlife mitigation plan to
the County as part of its application for Final master plan review." This makes it clear that
the No Net Loss Standard, and not DCC 18.113.070(K), applies to the review of the Resort's
fish and wildlife mitigation plans.
This criterion is interpreted to relate only to consumptive water to be used and the
Deschutes Basin Groundwater mitigation required by OWRD. The plain text of the criterion
makes this clear. It uses language such as "all proposed uses at the destination resort" and
"existing uses and potential development previously approved in the affected area" and
12 This is especially true because the ultimate backstop for the plan is to not pump water and thereby
have no impact. No mitigation is required if no water use or pumping occurs.
13 FMP Condition 10 states: "Applicant shall provide, at the time of tentative plat/ site plan review for
each individual phase of the resort development, updated documentation for the state water right
permit and an accounting of the full amount of mitigation, as required under the water right, for that
individual phase."
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 17 of 36
describes where water can be appropriated from. Nothing in this criterion relates to the fish
or wildlife habitat mitigation measures required to meet the No Net Loss Standard.
This interpretation is consistent with that which has been routinely adopted by LUBA and
affirmed by appellate courts. For example, see Gould v. Deschutes County, 322 Or App 11, 518
P3d 978 (2022) (Gould OLU). In a well -reasoned opinion, the Court of Appeals firmly rejected
the argument presented by opponents that Thornburgh had no water available to it for
consumptive use by the Resort. The Court said:
"We address each of petitioner's challenges in turn, conclude that LUBA
did not err, and therefore affirm.
Petitioner's arguments in her first assignment of error turn on LUBA's
interpretations of both FMP Conditions 10 and 38, which we review as a matter
of law. As noted, several of those interpretative issues have been decided in
previous LUBA orders that have been affirmed on judicial review and that we
therefore do not consider here. Beck v. Tillamook, 313 Ore. 148, 153, 831 P2d
678 (1992) (A party is not entitled to relitigate issues that have been resolved
on review of previous phases of the same land use litigation). LUBA has
previously held, in orders that we have affirmed without opinion, that the
requirements of FMP Condition 10 were satisfied by the documentation
provided by Thornburgh, including documentation of the continued existence
of Parmit r, 17036 and miti atinn data (;nl1/lll; GnUlrl rnlf Thiis, we decline
to consider petitioner's contention in her first assignment that Thornburgh
has failed to show that it holds a valid water permit or that it has not presented
sufficient data on mitigation. And we decline to consider petitioner's
argument, resolved in previous litigation, that FMP Condition 10 requires
proof, at this stage, of the availability of actual water behind Thornburgh's
water right. Thus, all of petitioner's arguments relating to FMP Condition 10
have previously been rejected and we reject them here.
Most of petitioner's arguments in her first assignment of error relating
to FMP Condition 38 have also been previously addressed and rejected by
LUBA in earlier orders. Petitioner's primary argument is that the requirement
in FMP Condition 38 that Thornburgh "abide by" "the April 2008 Wildlife
Mitigation Plan, the August 2008 Supplement, and agreements with the BLM
and ODFW for management of off -site mitigation efforts" means that
petitioner must prove, at every approval stage, that it has fulfilled those
requirements, which are set forth in the FWMP. LUBA noted in its order that
"the plain meaning of 'abide by' is 'to act or behave in accordance with or
obedience to (as a rule or promise) * * *: conform to.' Webster's Third New Intl
Dictionary(unabridged ed 2002). The opposite of'conform to' is 'deviate
from."' (Omission LUBA's.) LUBA agreed with petitioner's contention that the
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 18 of 36
requirement that Thornburgh abide by the requirements of the FWMP at every
stage means that it must comply with the FWMP at every stage. But LUBA
noted that it has held, in an order that we have affirmed without opinion on
judicial review, Gould V111, that neither the FWMP nor FMP Condition 38
requires pre -development mitigation, and that the requirement to "abide by"
the FWMP in FMP Condition 38 is satisfied by the reports filed by Thornburgh
that address the requirements of the FWMP. As interpreted by the county and
affirmed by LUBA, compliance with FMP Condition 38 is measured by annual
reporting filed after water use has begun. We are satisfied that, in light of the
requirements of the FWMP, with which FMP Condition 38 requires compliance
and which imposes no requirement for pre -development mitigation, LUBA's
interpretation of FMP Condition 38 is correct as a matter of law. We therefore
reject that portion of petitioner's first assignment of error." Gould OLU, 322 Or.
App. at 23-24.
Further, as in other County decisions approving Thornburgh development approvals,
Thornburgh again provided evidence that G-17036 is a valid and non -cancelled permit. The
Board finds that this criterion, if relevant, is met.
LUBA has observed that "[i]n calling for updated documentation for each phase of
development, the text of FMP Condition 10 suggests that water sources and permits for the
destination resort could potentially change following FMP approval." Gould v. Deschutes
�._ i n /I l In nI,. -\n-\� ncc-..�.. �.-.. 9 7n'f'J\ 1'.-. ...� 9?
County, _ O LUBM _ M1BA ivv. w/- i -v665, January y i , wc_.�), slip OP. P. i I
The Board finds that so long as the Resort can show, consistent with FMP Condition 10, that
a groundwater right remains in a valid and non -cancelled status that may serve the Resort,
this criterion is not violated, and FMP Condition 10 is satisfied.
Having addressed the substantive arguments found in DCC Title 18 we now address the
procedural arguments.
B. Procedural Arguments
Throughout the proceedings below and before the Board, several parties including Appellant
Gould made procedural claims or arguments that must be addressed.
"Void CMP" Argument
Opponents claim that LUBA held in Central Land and Cattle Co. v. Deschutes County, 74 Or
LUBA 326 (2016) land use decision ("LUBA FMP 2016 Decision") that the Thornburgh
conceptual master plan or "CMP" is void. LUBA held that "[a]II requirements of the CMP
approval are now requirements of the County's FMP approval" and the FMP "has effectively
incorporated and displaced the CMP approval" LUBA FMP 2016 Decision at 346. LUBA did not
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 19 of 36
find that the CMP is void. Furthermore, as is detailed in that case, the County's hearings
officer rejected Appellant Gould's argument in that case that the CMP was void and LUBA
affirmed that decision. Therefore, this argument is an impermissible collateral attack on the
resolution of this issue by the LUBA FMP 2016 Decision. It is also settled and binding under
Gould v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2022-013, June 1, 2022), aff'd 322 Or App
11, 23 (2022) (explaining a party may not relitigate issues resolved in previous phases of
development), rev den, _ Or _ (S069882).
Opponents go on to claim that the CMP is void because Thornburgh failed to seek and the
County failed to hold a hearing on remand in Gould v. Deschutes County, 72 Or LUBA 258
(2015) within the statutory timeline under ORS 215.435. This issue is an impermissible
collateral attack on LUBA's finding that the CMP has been incorporated into the FMP.
Furthermore, the provision of ORS 215.435 that terminates an application if a review on
remand is not requested within 180 days of the final resolution of judicial review was not
effective until after LUBA issued its remand decision. This law may not be applied
retroactively because to do so would prejudice the Applicant in that case by voiding that
application. Furthermore, the case in question did not find that the CMP is void and that was
not its legal effect. LUBA approved the FMP thereafter finding that it incorporated the CMP
and that decision is final.
The Board finds that Thornburgh's CMP is not void.
Moreover, the Board notes that the CMP required creation of a FWMP to meet the No Net
Loss Standard at FMP approval stage, not during CMP review. Therefore, the CMP is not
implicated or altered by this Application; there is no change to the CMP and findings from
the CMP are not altered.
2. Interaction between the CMP and FMP
There is some confusion regarding the County's resort application process and the relation,
if any, between a CMP and FMP. Opponents to the Application argue that Thornburgh's CMP
and FMP are not one document, and the Hearings Officer found that the CMP and the FMP
are two separate documents. The Applicant has stated they are one document. We find that
the issue is largely irrelevant because the FMP "incorporated and displaced" the CMP, as
stated by LUBA. We agree with the Applicant that they are now both a part of a single
document- one part being the CMP and the other being the FMP.
As outlined in DCC Chapter 18.113, a destination resort is subject to a three -stage approval
process. After a CMP is approved, a more refined FMP must be approved. Finally, each phase
receives final approval, which is much more specific, at the individual site plan or tentative
plan stage. Up and until a third -stage application, fluidity in a resort's plan is warranted and
provided for in the Code and in the Board's 2006 decision approving Thornburgh's CMP.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 20 of 36
DCC 18.113.090 requires general locations and descriptions to be included in the FMP. DCC
18.113.100(A) then requires the FMP to be reviewed against the CMP criteria and standards.
Once an FMP is approved, third -stage development applications may be made and
compliance is adjudged against the FMP, which as LUBA ruled, incorporates and displaces
the CMP.
The purpose and relevancy of the CMP now, is for context related to a modification of the
FMP approval. The hearings officer erred in finding that modifying the FMP may, in this case,
require modification of the first -phase CMP document. Here, no change to the CMP is
required. The final version of Thornburgh's CMP included Condition 37. It replaced CMP
Condition 28, which was rejected by the Oregon Court of Appeals. CMP Condition 37 required
the applicant to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.113.070(D)(no net loss/degradation)
by filing a wildlife mitigation plan as a part of its application seeking approval of the FMP. It
also required that a public hearing be held with the same participatory rights allowed for
approval of the CMP. While CMP Condition 37 applied to the review of the Resort's initial
FWMP during the review of the FMP, it also applies to any changes made to the FMP that
involve revisions to the FWMP. The Applicant has complied with CMP Condition 37 by seeking
the required public review for an amendment of the FWMP part of the FMP. Furthermore,
no finding in the CMP considers, relies on or addresses any provision of the 2008 FWMP so
no change of the CMP is required in order to approve changes to the FWMP.
3. Substantial Change - Code and Conditions
Opponents argue that the Application seeks a substantial change to the approved CMP and
FMP, and that such a change requires a new application or a consideration of substantive
criteria other than DCC 18.113.070(K), including all criteria related to the original CMP
approval. These arguments are largely based upon the term "substantial change" as it is used
in various provisions of the Code or specific conditions. While the hearings officer attempted
to harmonize these requirements, the decision below was at times conflicting. We take this
opportunity to clarify and interpret our code as it relates to "substantial changes" in the
context of this Application.
a) DCC 18.113.080
Opponents have argued that the Application is a "substantial change" as that term is used in
DCC 18.113.080 and so the Application must be reviewed against all criterion related to CMP
approval. They argue that the Application's proposed reduction in water use and or deletion
of an optional golf course changes/alters the "type, scale, location, phasing or other
characteristic of the proposed development." The Board disagrees.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 21 of 36
DCC 18.113.080 states:
"Any substantial change, as determined by the Planning Director, proposed to
an approved CMP shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original CMP.
An insubstantial change may be approved by the Planning Director.
Substantial change to an approved CMP, as used in DCC 18.113.080, means an
alteration in the type, scale, location, phasing or other characteristic of the
proposed development such that findings of fact on which the original
approval was based would be materially affected."
As noted by the Applicant and by the Tribe, the CMP and FMP do not commit the Applicant
to using all of the water authorized by approval of the FMP or to develop more than one golf
course. Consequently, a commitment not to use all allowed water, or to not build a golf
course that was optional and not required, does not alter the scale of the Resort in any way
such that findings of fact of the original CMP approval would be materially affected. Only one
golf course is required. The other two are optional. This means that the third golf course
that the Applicant has agreed not to build is not required to be built, even if the impacts of
this potential golf course were identified, studied and mitigated when the CMP was
approved. Choosing not to construct it is not a substantial change given that it was not
required in the first instance. As a result, the Board finds that limitations on water use and
golf course development are not a substantial change to the approved CMP.
The hearings officer correctly determined that the DCC 18.113.080 definition of "substantial
change" has a second requirement (in addition to the "alteration" requirement addressed
above). That is, the hearings officer is correct that Applicant's proposal to modify the
CMP/FMP water usage or elimination of an optional golf course are not "substantial changes"
under DCC 18.113.080 because the changes would not require an alteration of the findings
of the original approval.
However, we disagree with the hearings officer interpretation of the Code in that the
hearings officer determined that changing mitigation from the 2008 FWMP to the 2022
FWMP is changing a characteristic of the proposed development. We agree with the
Applicant that the changes in the source of mitigation water from the 2008 FWMP to the
2022 FWMP is merely a change to a plan that mitigates for the impacts of the proposed
development. It does not change the proposed development or the characteristics of it
beyond placing a greater restriction on the maximum amount of water used and the number
of optional golf courses that may be developed. Approval of the proposed amendment does
not require any change in the findings of the CMP as none address the provisions of the 2008
FWM P.
Further, the hearings officer's determination that an amendment to the FWMP would
materially affect the findings of compliance with the No Net Loss Standard in the FMP
because it modifies mitigation measures and so is a DCC 18.113.080 "substantial change," is
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 22 of 36
incorrect. DCC 18.113.080 asks whether a proposed change to an "approved CMP" is a
substantial change. The approved CMP is the CMP approved by the Board in DC Document
No. 2006-151 as modified by DC Document No. 2008-51. No finding of the approved CMP
addresses the particulars of the 2008 FWMP. Instead, Condition 37 of the approved CMP
requires the filing and public review of an FWMP with the FMP application. The requested
modification of the FWMP has been reviewed in the manner required by Condition 37 of the
approved CMP, which is through a land use application review.
Opponents have also argued that DCC 18.113.080's requirement that any substantial change
"be reviewed in the same manner as the original CMP" requires an entirely new CMP. That is
not the case. The Code merely requires that a substantial change be reviewed "in the same
manner" as the original CMP, which is to say that it proceed through land use review in the
same way as the original CMP in that case. Even though the Board finds that no substantial
change is proposed here, the land use review has afforded the same process provided
during the original CMP, which was review before a hearings officer and then the Board of
Commissioners.
The Board finds that the Application does not need to meet all criteria related to CMP
approval. The Board further finds that the Application does not represent a substantial
change as that term is used in DCC 18.113.080.
b) CMP and FMP Condition 1 - New Application & Substantial
Change
Opponents argue that CMP and FMP Condition 1 are relevant and that they require a new
resort application. These conditions are identical and are addressed herein as "FMP
Condition 1." FMP Condition 1 provides that "approval is based upon the submitted plan. Any
substantial change to the approved plan will require a new application." The Board disagrees
with opponents that a "new application" means a new CMP or new FMP. The reference to a
"new application" means a new land use application and land use review which includes an
application to modify the CMP or FMP. This is the most reasonable interpretation of this
language as the condition uses a term, "substantial change," defined by and assigned
consequences by the Resort code. There is nothing in the text of Condition 1 to suggest that
a different and more stringent rule is being applied by the CMP and FMP decisions. Applying
an interpretation that is different than the Code would effectively repeal the relevant Code
criteria regarding substantial change.
The CMP originally imposed Condition 1, which states that "Approval is based upon the
submitted plan. Any substantial change to the approved plan will require a new application."
Upon FMP approval, the hearings officer carried through the condition to ensure compliance
with the original CMP. The condition means the same in both contexts, and neither require
that an application for a new CMP or new FMP be sought, only that a modification application
be filed and then reviewed in the same manner as the original approval.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 23 of 36
This interpretation is consistent with the Board's previous findings in Thornburgh's CMP
decision in 2006. In our 2006 Decision, the Board determined that the substantial change of
converting Phase A Overnight Lodging Units to single-family homes would require "a
modification of this conceptual master plan" - not approval of a new CMP. DC Document
2006-151, p. 46. This finding is contained in the same decision that created Condition 1. If a
new CMP were required to make a substantial change such as this to the CMP, Condition 1
would surely have said so. Additionally, Condition 1 does not say that a substantial change
renders the approved CMP or FMP void. It only requires a "new application" which the
BOCC's CMP findings indicate is an application for modification of the conceptual plan.
With regards to whether the Application is a Condition 1 "substantial change," the hearings
officer determined that LUBA had held in a previous modification that the application of DCC
18.113.080's "substantial change" definition to define the meaning of FMP Condition 1 was
appropriate and so the Application is an FMP Condition 1 "substantial change" because the
hearings officer determined a DCC 18.113.080 "substantial change" was requested. As
already noted above, the Board disagrees that the Application is a DCC 18.113.080
"substantial change" because it involves no change to the approved CMP. The Board agrees
with the hearings officer that DCC 18.113.080 defines the meaning of "substantial change" in
FMP Condition 1. The Board, however, finds that the Application is not a "substantial change"
for the purpose of FMP Condition 1. As we determined earlier, it is not a change of CMP
Condition 1.
While FMP Condition 1 relates to the FMP that includes the 2008 FWMP, the 2022 FWMP will
not modify or authorize additional development so it will not impose significant additional
impacts on surrounding properties. It is not a "substantially new [destination resort]
proposal." The 2008 FWMP is a discrete and minor part of the FMP that addresses one code
criterion of many - DCC 18.113.070(D). It serves a narrow purpose of mitigating the impacts
of resort development. It is not, itself, resort development or a plan for resort development.
FMP Condition 1 was imposed to apply to the entire FMP and all supporting documents, not
to a discrete singular mitigation plan. Instead, FMP Condition 38 was imposed for compliance
with the FWMP, which is exactly what the Application seeks to modify. We agree with the
hearings officer's findings of compliance with DCC 22. 22.36.040(C) that find that the FWMP
is a minor part of the approved FMP. Changing this one element or part is not a substantially
new destination resort proposal.
We find that this is permitted and that such a modification is not a "substantial change" for
the purposes of FMP Condition 1.
Opponents argue that approval of the FMP and 2008 FWMP relied upon findings of fact that
the Resort had obtained OWRD water right permit G-17036 and that that permit has since
expired. We disagree that the FMP and FWMP relied upon that permit, and, that argument
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 24 of 36
has been routinely rejected by appellate bodies. We have further addressed this issue above
related to water availability and in Exhibit A.
The record includes OWRD records that show that G-17036 remains "non -cancelled." LUBA
and the Oregon Court of Appeals have affirmed County findings in approvals of Resort
development that G-17036 has not expired. Gould v. Deschutes County, 322 Or App 11 (2022),
rev den 370 Or 827 ("Gould OLU"). The Oregon Court of Appeals has also found that "there
is no requirement in the FWMP that the water rights and mitigation can only be satisfied
through Permit G-17036." Gould OLU at p. 22, fn 7. LUBA has also found that "[i]n calling for
'updated documentation for each phase of development, the text of FMP Condition 10
suggests that water sources and permits for the destination resort could potentially change
following FMP approval." Gould v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (Or LUBA No. 2021-066, p.
13). We agree with the Court of Appeals and LUBA.
4. DCC 18.113.100 and Modifications of FMPs
Our Code specifically permits the modifications of any land use decision, including FMPs and,
to the extent necessary, CMPs. DCC 18.113.100(B) makes it clear that any provision of an
FMP, including an amended FMP, that is determined by the Planning Director to be a
substantial change from an approved CMP may be reviewed as an application for
modification or amendment of the CMP. And, contrary to the claims of the opponents,
nothing in our Code requires that these processes happen in sequential fashion; they can
occur in tandem and during the same application process, so long as the change is reviewed
in the same manner as the original CMP. DCC 18.113.080. We interpret DCC 18.113.100 to
permit modifications to an FMP and that if such a modification is a substantial change that it
must (and may) also be approved at the same time as a modification to the underlying CMP.
S. Harmonizing DCC 18.113.080, Condition 1, and Modifications of FMPs
Both DCC 18.113.080 and FMP Condition 1 require a new application in the event of a
substantial change of the CMP. In this case, no change is proposed to the CMP part of the
FMP. FMP Condition 1 requires that a new application be filed if the Application proposes a
substantial change. The Board finds the Applicant's proposal does not propose a substantial
change.. The Board also finds that, even if the Applicant had proposed a "substantial
.change," that the "new application" referred to in both conditions means a new land use
application reviewed in the same manner as the original approval. It does not require a new
CMP or FMP, merely an application to amend or modify the relevant approval. The review of
the modified FWMP conducted by the County is the same review required for substantial
modifications.
Opponents also argue that modification necessarily implicates the CMP. While that may be
the case in certain circumstances, that is not the case here. The CMP imposed CMP Condition
37, which says:
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 25 of 36
"Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.113.070(D) by
submitting a wildlife mitigation plan to the County as part of its application for
Final master plan approval. The County shall consider the wildlife mitigation
plan at a public hearing with the same participatory rights as those allowed in
the CMP approval hearing."
Therefore, while CMP Condition 37 may be the base against which changes are measured,
we find that no substantial change to the CMP itself is proposed because the CMP does not
contain the 2008 FWMP or findings related to it. Given that CMP Condition 37 imposes a
requirement to review an FWMP through a public hearing, even if the CMP was implicated,
we find that Thornburgh has complied with the requirement of CMP Condition 37 when
seeking review of a modification of the FWMP. The Application has been reviewed through a
public hearing process and the requirements of CMP Condition 37 have been met. Logically,
this condition applies both to a modification of an approved wildlife mitigation plan such as
the FWMP as well as to the initial plan.
It has been argued that former CMP Condition 28 applies and requires approval of the FWMP
by ODFW and BLM. Condition 28 was, however, replaced by CMP Condition 37. Condition 28
dispenses with the assurance of public review of the FWMP provided by CMP Condition 37
that was provided to assure that the CMP was a valid approval. It would also be a collateral
attack against the final decision.
6. DCC 22.36.040 - General Modification Criteria
The Deschutes County Code also imposes general modification criteria that apply to all land
use applications. These criteria apply except to the extent that other more specific
requirements, such as those provided in DCC Chapter 18.113, apply.
a) DCC 22.36.040 - "surrounding properties"
Opponents argued that for the purpose of determining impacts associated with a
modification request on "surrounding properties" under DCC 22.36.040, "surrounding
properties" is not just adjoining properties but includes substantially more lands including
any land connected by river flows, irrigation wells, drinking water, or water as a whole. The
hearings officer found that "surrounding properties," as used in DCC 22.36.040.C, means the
real property ownerships that are directly adjacent to (surrounding) the Subject Property.
The Board finds that a determination of "surrounding properties" must, however, be made
based on a project -specific analysis of the area around the subject property and anticipated
impacts resulting from the proposed modification. The Board finds that for the purposes of
this application, the "surrounding properties" are those adjacent to the Subject Property and
that the impacts are not "additional' or "significant." This is especially true because the Resort
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 26 of 36
adjoins large tracts of land owned by governmental entities and one 80-acre property owned
by a private owner.
However, assuming that surrounding properties include all lands identified by opponents,
the impacts of the modification of the FWMP in those areas is not "significant." Imposing a
limit on the Resort's water use may, at best, offer a slight benefit to area properties beyond
adjoining properties by having a lesser impact on groundwater wells than authorized by the
FMP, but this is not a "significant additional impact." If the "surrounding properties" includes
all streams and rivers benefitted by the mitigation plan and riverfront properties, the
temperature and flow impacts of water transfers and mitigation is so low as to be
immeasurable and, therefore, is not a "significant additional impact." DCC 22.36.040.C. This
is well documented by Thornburgh's expert technical reports, which we find to be credible
and persuasive. The same is true for any water declines in the area that would be caused by
pumping at Thornburgh.
b) DCC 22.36.040.13 - "substantially new proposal"
DCC 22.36.040.13 provides:
"Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the
grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since
the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the
proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an
appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have
significant additional impacts on surrounding properties."
The Board finds that changes in circumstances exist such that it is desirable to make changes
to the 2008 FWMP. Among others, this includes the robust technical analysis provided by
Applicant's experts that the 2022 FWMP will result in increased stream flows and decreased
stream temperatures.
Opponents argue that the 2022 FWMP is a "substantially new proposal" which cannot be
approved. We disagree. DCC 22.36.040.13 relates to whether the modification modifies the
actual approved use, in this case, the Resort as a whole. It relates primarily to the approved
FMP and, because the Application only proposes an updated FWMP without substantially
changing the actual required development contemplated by the FMP, we cannot find the
proposal to be a "substantially new proposal." We also agree with the Applicant that many
elements of the 2022 FWMP remain the same as from the 2008 FWMP, including the
purchase of Big Falls Ranch water rights and the TSID mitigation for Whychus Creek.
The Application proposes no new infrastructure, housing units, or other actual development.
The Application also proposes no "significant additional impacts on surrounding properties."
Therefore, we find that the Application is permitted as a modification under DCC 22.36.040.B.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 27 of 36
c) DCC 22.36.040.0 - "discrete aspect"
DCC 22.36.040.0 states:
"An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete
aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not amount to
approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant
additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed modification, as
defined in DCC 22.36.040, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable
to that particular aspect of the proposal. Proposals that would modify an
approval in a scope greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated
as an application for a new proposal."
The modification proposal will not have "significant additional impacts on surrounding
properties." It is not, based on findings for "surrounding properties" and DCC 22.36.040.13, a
"substantially new proposal." The Board finds that the criteria applicable to the proposed
modification here are compliance with the No Net Loss Standard and the County's
procedures ordinance. Those criteria have been addressed herein, consistent with DCC
22.36.040.C.
Applicant's proposed modification of the amount of water used by the Resort, elimination of
one (of three) golf courses and changing the source of FWMP mitigation water are "discrete"
aspects of the FMP approval.14 We find that the Application is not greater in scope than
allowable as a modification.
7. Modification of Application During Review Arguments
Both before the hearings officer and again before the Board, Appellant Gould and others
argued that Thornburgh had modified its Application by submitting additional evidence in
response to comments made or information requested by ODFW and others such that the
150-day clock should be restarted. These arguments generally related to the DCC 22.20.055
or procedural requirements of ORS 197.797.
We have previously interpreted our modification Code when Appellant Gould raised the
same arguments during review and approval of the CMP, and we decline to reinterpret them
here. These findings are included in the record and are found at page 89 of CU-05-20. In
essence, a modification only may be found if the additional information requires the
application of new criteria to the proposal, such that the findings of fact would require
change. Thornburgh providing response or additional evidence to support its Application
14 Reduced water use and elimination of one of three golf courses are allowed by the CMP and FMP,
and do not require approval as a modification of either document.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 28 of 36
does not change the applicable criteria. As such, the Board finds that no modification
occurred.
Appellant Gould requested and was granted a de novo hearing before the Board on all issues.
It is not error for an Applicant to submit additional response evidence during a de novo
hearing of her appeal.
8. ORS 197.797 has Not Been Violated
Appellant Gould argues that the County has violated ORS 197.797 because it permitted the
Applicant to submit additional evidence to support the Application during the public review
process. We find this argument to be unpersuasive and contrary to the plain text of the
statute.
ORS 197.797(4)(a) requires that "All documents or evidence relied upon by the applicant shall
be submitted to the local government and made available to the public." Appellant Gould
argued that by the Applicant putting in any supporting evidence including a revised FWMP
document, this law is violated. This is not a correct reading of that law. All that law requires
is that documents be available, which they clearly are given that Appellant Gould specifically
commented or provided rebuttal argument and evidence related to them. ORS 197.797(4)
does not prevent an applicant from submitting additional information or evidence, and,
actually expressly permits additional evidence. ORS 197.797(4)(b).15
Furthermore, ORS 197.797(5)-(7) and (9) govern the receipt of evidence at and after the
conclusion of a land use hearing and an initial land use hearing. None of these provisions
prohibit an applicant from providing evidence at a land use hearing or during a post -hearing
comment period. Additionally, ORS 1979.797(6)(c) says that "[a]ny participant" may request
an opportunity to respond to new evidence filed during the post -hearing comment period;
making it clear that an applicant is not prohibited from providing rebuttal evidence for
consideration by the Board.
Similarly, Appellant Gould's arguments that ORS 197.797(3) has been violated is without
merit. That section only requires that the County to mail notice within 20-days of the hearing.
The fact that Thornburgh has provided additional evidence to respond to Appellant Gould
and others does not mean that the County has violated procedural requirements of the
statute. To the extent Appellant Gould has argued that the inclusion of additional evidence
or updates to the 2022 FWMP makes it unrealistic for the public to understand the
application under consideration, we find little merit in that argument. Thornburgh has clearly
applied to modify the FMP by replacing the 2008 FWMP with the 2022 FWMP to meet the No
Net Loss Standard and the mitigation measures proposed by that plan to meet the standard
15 ORS 197.797(4) also likely does not apply to post -hearing record periods. Those periods are
controlled by ORS 197.797(6).
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 29 of 36
are those proposed by the initial Application with only minor adjustments made to address
objections to the Application.
Appellant Gould makes additional arguments before the Board that ORS 197.797(6) is
violated. Again, we disagree. ORS 197.797(6) only applies to the initial evidentiary hearing
and not to an appeal hearing before the Board. Even still, we find that Thornburgh providing
additional technical evidence in response to evidence or comments made by Appellant
Gould, ODFW, or any other participant is not a violation of ORS 197.797(6).
9. Rebuttal Objection
Appellant Gould also argued, after the record was closed, that Thornburgh improperly
provided testimony that it "should have or could have" been submitted earlier. This
argument is based upon her claim that the "structure of ORS 197.797(6) is to provide
opponents the last word on evidence[.]" We disagree. Nothing in the statute provides project
opponents with the ability to provide "the last word on evidence" and the statute specifically
allows "any person" or "any participant" to submit new evidence during a post -hearing
comment period. Moreover, by its terms, ORS 197.797(6) only applies to an initial evidentiary
hearing and not to a de novo appeal hearing before the Board.
The Board has reviewed the objection by Appellant Gould filed on March 10, 2023, and the
response provided by Thornburgh on March 13, 2023, and agree with Thornburgh. All
evidence provided by Thornburgh is responsive to evidence, issues, or claims provided by
opponents during the open record period. For those reasons, the Board denies Appellant
Gould's request.
10. Published Notice of Hearing
DCC 22.24.030 requires that notice of an initial land use hearing must be published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the county at least 20 days prior to the hearing. The
Board finds the 201" day cannot occur on the same day as the initial hearing. In this case,
notice was published on October 4, 2022, which was twenty days prior to (before) the date
set for the hearing. The hearings officer's decision found that DCC 22.08.070 says that "the
time within which an act is required to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day
and including the last day" except when provided otherwise. We agree. We note, however,
that the hearing before the Board was a de novo review so the error was resolved by having
an additional hearing. No party has challenged notice issues regarding the Board process.
C. Miscellaneous Argument and Arguments Outside of the Scope of the
Proceeding
Opponents have raised a number of issues that have no relevancy to the Application. We
have generally addressed those in Exhibit A.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 30 of 36
1. Changes to Physical Layout Warrant Additional Modification
Opponents have questioned whether Thornburgh's plan to remove an optional golf course
is a substantial "on the ground" change that warrants a broader modification of the Resort's
CMP and FMP. We find that it does not. The scope of the Application relates only to the
modification of the Resort's FWMP and our decision is limited to the scope of the present
Application.
The Application supports a reduction of water use by removing an optional golf course. Given
that the golf course is optional, it is clear that the CMP and FMP approvals contemplated that
changes in the number of golf courses might occur. It is worth noting that the Resort has
already received various approvals including a golf course site plan, two tentative plans, and
various site plans, that have already updated the physical layout of the Resort. Those
decisions cannot be collaterally attacked during this proceeding or any proceeding in the
future.
Further, the Board finds that it is appropriate to make reasonable revisions to the FMP
layouts during third -stage review under DCC 18.113.040.C. The FMP application
requirements at DCC 18.113.090 are only meant to provide general, preliminary, or
descriptions of later applications; they are not set in stone and unable to change. An FMP
does not require legal descriptions or accurate surveying and monumenting, it is a general
plan. The site -specific plans and their review are addressed during the individual site plan
and tentative plan stage, or 3rd stage of the destination resort review process. The Board
finds that DCC 18.113.040 and the three -stage application process allows "on the ground
changes" or updates but does not require that a CMP or FMP be modified for each change
unless the specific impacts of the change proposed for a site plan or tentative plan application
would result in a substantial change to the CMP or FMP. In this scenario, a separate
modification request would be required.
2. G-17036 is Required under Condition 38 and the 2008 FWMP Argument
Opponents argue that the 2008 FWMP and the findings of fact related to FMP Condition 38
relied upon the specific impacts of G-17036 and the permit's mitigation sources to ensure
the mitigation plan met the No Net Loss Standard. This argument has been made and
rejected numerous times, including at the Court of Appeals. Gould v. Deschutes County, 322
Or App 11, 22 fn 7 (2022) (Gould OLU). We agree with the Court's analysis that nothing in the
previous 2008 FWMP or in the FMP requires use of G-17036 by the Resort, nor were findings
of facts based upon it. The only findings regarding the source of consumptive water included
in the FWMP are that water be appropriated from the Deschutes Basin regional aquifer.
Regardless, we find that the No Net Loss Standard only requires a showing that specific
measures ensure that the Resort's groundwater pumping will result in no net loss or
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 31 of 36
degradation of wildlife habitat. This is detailed more above. Neither that standard nor the
FMP nor the 2008 FWMP require use of a specific groundwater permit.
3. Alleged Code Violations and Well Indemnity Agreement
Opponents have argued that the Application cannot be approved due to alleged violations
under DCC 22.20.01 S. We have previously interpreted that code provision (which is in this
record) and decline to do so again. Under our previous interpretations, which have been
upheld on appeal, we are not required to address alleged code violations during this
proceeding unless the Subject Property has been adjudicated to have existing code
violations. There are no adjudicated code violations. Further, these arguments are mostly
based upon opponents' "void CMP" argument, which we have already addressed and
rejected.
Appellant Gould also argues that Thornburgh is in violation because the well indemnification
agreements required by CMP Condition 11 were offered by a different and now inactive LLC.
We disagree for three reasons. First, CMP Condition 11 required the "Applicant" of the Resort
to provide such agreements. Deschutes County did not condition the CMP or FMP approvals
to apply to any particular entity or to prohibit assignment of development rights by
Thornburgh Resort Company, LLC to Central Land and Cattle Company, LLC. This issue was
settled against Appellant Gould during the FMP litigation. See Central Land and Cattle
Company, LLC v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2015-107, September 23,
2006)(Cross Petition Issue Q. Thornburgh remains bound to provide the well agreements
because Central Land and Cattle Company, LLC has assumed all development rights and
obligations of Thornburgh Resort Company, LLC and because the resort approvals and their
conditions run with the land and apply to development by any developer. Second, this issue
has no bearing on whether the Resort meets the No Net Loss Standard, and so it is not a
relevant approval criterion. Lastly, the issue is not ripe because Thornburgh has not begun
pumping water for Resort uses. Therefore, compliance with the well indemnity requirements
is not yet required and no violation of CMP Condition 11 has occurred. To the extent relevant
to Appellant Gould's argument, the Board finds that CMP Condition 11 required a showing
of "actual well interference as a result of Applicants [sic] water use." Actual well interference
requires a finding of such by OWRD, who assisted in developing the well indemnification
agreements. See CMP Condition 11.
4. Housing Affordability and ORS 197.455
Opponents argue that approval of the Application will have negative impacts on housing
affordability or that the Resort will not be able to pay employees enough, thereby
exacerbating affordability issues. These arguments are in no way applicable to the
Application and we decline to further address them.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 32 of 36
Appellant Gould argues that ORS 197.455 precludes Thornburgh from providing residential
housing. This is simply incorrect and has been routinely rejected by LUBA and the Courts.
See Gould v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2022-011, June 16, 2022)(slip op 15-
17), aff'd without opinion, 311 Or App 383 (2022). Further, it has no bearing on the application
at hand.
5. Claims of Streams or Wetlands on Subject Property and DSL
Coordination
Appellant Gould claims that streams exist on the Subject Property. That is simply not the
case, as stated by Hickman Williams & Associates. Further, Department of State Land ("DSL")
staff advised planning staff that notice to DSL was not necessary because no wetlands or
streams exist on the property.
6. Adequate Sewer Flow
Appellant Gould and her technical expert Mr. Lambie argue that Thornburgh must also
update its Sewer System Master Plan. This argument is based upon Thornburgh's decision
to not build an optional golf course. The Board finds that the Sewer Master Plan is not
implicated by changes to the 2022 FWMP, nor does it supply applicable criteria for the review
of this application. Additionally, nothing in the 2008 FWMP implicates the Sewer System
Master Plan. Lastly, the Sewer System Master Plan found that only 34.5 acres of land are
needed in the south basin to apply treated effluent to. The south basin is the southern half
of the Resort that received approval for two golf courses but where only one will be built.
Based upon the size of the approved golf course and other open space and landscaped areas
already approved by previous decisions, there is more than enough land to apply the effluent
contemplated by the Sewer Master Plan. Thornburgh has also provided a technical response
to this issue, which is persuasive.
Thornburgh's sewer system is subject to approval to the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality ("DEQ"). That body is the correct body to approve construction
drawings and requirements. This argument provides no basis for denial.
7. Adequate Water for Uses and Fire Flow
Opponents argue that there is not sufficient water flow to ensure fire suppression for resort
uses. This is not applicable criteria or relevant to whether or not the 2022 FWMP meets the
No Net Loss Standard. Thornburgh has provided a technical response from Hickman
Williams & Associates that refutes this argument, which is persuasive.
The County's building official, Randy Scheid, also weighed in. He stated that specific fire flow
requirements will be addressed during the building permit stage for any proposed structure
or occupancy.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 33 of 36
It is also worth noting that the resort's Water System Master Plan16 found that:
"After approval of the final master plan for the resort, the water distribution
network will be modeled to determine the final locations of the reservoirs and
to determine which zones will require booster pump station in order to
maintain adequate pressure and flow for domestic and fire protection uses."
Therefore, water and fire flow capacity and flow requirements are properly deferred until
specific application for a use consistent with the building official's statements and the Water
System Master Plan.
Opponents also argue that building without water places the County's population at risk. This
argument is unrelated to the Applicant's request to modify the FWMP. Further, we find that
the Applicant is not building without water - it has a valid and non -cancelled water right and
has obtained approval of a temporary transfer of the Tree Farm Water right.
8. Drought Conditions Warrant Denial of the Application
Many commenters to the record note that Deschutes County remains in a drought. While
that may be true, there is no legal authority for us to deny this Application on the basis of a
drought and, as noted above, the Applicant's proposal does not change the findings under
DCC 18.113.070(K). Thornburgh is required to show that the impact of its own water use does
not create a net loss or degradation of wildlife habitat, independent of drought conditions.
Importantly, Thornburgh has provided expert testimony that shows that even in drought
conditions, the 2022 FWMP meets the No Net Loss Standard, which we find persuasive.
Further, Oregon land use law and the land use process provides limited tools to address
drought. Current domestic use of water is only about 50,000 acre feet per year, as opposed
to nearly 725,000 acre feet of irrigation use. Thornburgh's overall water use is not substantial
in this greater context. Limiting its total water use to a maximum of 1,460 acre feet as
required by the 2022 FWMP ensures that its impact will be reduced.
9. Additional Crooked River Program and Juniper Thinning
At the request of the Tribe, with consultation with the Crooked River Watershed Council
("CRWC"), Thornburgh designed an additional benefit package related to the Crooked River.
Thornburgh also provided additional evidence that its juniper tree thinning would be
beneficial to stream flows. While the Board is appreciative of both of these measures, the
Board finds that these measures are not necessary nor relied upon to establish that the
16 This further supports our finding that on the ground changes will occur at the third -stage
development application stage under DCC 18.113.040.C.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 34 of 36
Application meets the No Net Loss Standard. That standard, as articulated above, is met by
the 2022 FWMP and does not include the additive thinning or CRWC measures.
Thornburgh expert Eilers and participant Tim DeBoodt also provided comment that
Thornburgh's existingjuniper thinning efforts are likely to lead to water conservation of 300+
acre-feet of water. However, the Board finds a separate review would be needed to
determine the effectiveness of juniper thinning in the context of the requirements of the
FWMP.
IV. DECISION
The Application is APPROVED. The 2008 FWMP is replaced in its entirety by the 2022 FWMP.
FMP Condition 38 is modified per Thornburgh's request. FMP Condition 40 is imposed, as
proposed by the Applicant, to ensure compliance with the 2022 FWMP.
The Applicant's appeal is AFFIRMED and Appellant Gould's appeal is DENIED.
V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FMP Condition 38 is revised to read as follow:
Revised FMP Condition 38: "Thornburgh shall abide by the April 2008 Wildlife Mitigation Plan
(excluding the April 21, 2008 FWMP addendum to that plan and its addenda)("Terrestrial
WMP"), and all agreements with the BLM and ODFW for management of offsite mitigation
efforts required by the Terrestrial WMP. Consistent with the plan, Thornburgh shall submit
an annual report to the county detailing mitigation activities that have occurred over the
previous year.
The FMP is modified to include the following new condition, FMP Condition 40:
FMP Condition 40: Thornburgh shall comply with the 2022 Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan,
including its compliance and reporting mechanisms found in Section II of that plan.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - BOCC Supplemental Findings
Exhibit B - 2022 FWMP
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 35 of 36
Dated this day of April, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL UPON MAILING. PARTIES MAY APPEAL THIS DECISION TO
THE LAND USE BOARD OFAPPEALS WITHIN 21 DAYS OFTHE DATE ON WHICH THIS DECISION
IS FINAL.
Board Document No. 2023-382
247-22-000678-MC, 247-22-000984-A, 247-23-000003-A Page 36 of 36
L
i
V)
0
L
bA
r
bA
vt
>
>
+
C
0
O
ru
°o
Q-
a,
a
4--'
a+
n
u
W
a
3
L
u
v,
"
c
c
�
u
c
a0,
x
3
N
o
a'U
a
4-
v
a
p
D
Ln
O
N
c
0-
Q—
C
0
O
v,
>
V
N
>
0
+'
V
-a
a
'�
>
c
r6
vt
0
O
c-
c)
.,�
a
a)
L
Q
v,
c
O0
v
Ln
a
a'
'^
o
0
o
+
n'
y
0
QM
p
y
v,
a
a
O
Q
ut
c
O
O
V
(n
ut
bA
L
�n
M=
Q
v
v
O
N
a
V
0
a
o
Q
O
4-
c-
bA
c
V
�
ap
d
�
�
�
O
�
O
w
�
p
a
,�
ti
E
a
00
v
c
L
�
�
�
L
�
Qa)
L
-1
m
�,
1
a'
a
o
a
�,
�
�,
ro
0:
o(V
v,
E
m
LnL
LL
o
'ao
a
ao
a
'_'
a
M
c
r�6
o
L
3
0
ra
L
L
N
O
L
p
rp
v,
a
j,
L
-a
L
ro
p
N
CD
L
L
N
+-
a
(A
�
4
r6
��
a
�
v
-p
v�'-
-0
°
,
o
E
a
V
p
O
Nv
ro
0�
N
"N
�
�
y-
L
_0
50)
Ln
aQ"
c
O
C
b 0
MO
rB
c
C
v,
4
N
v
.O
4-1
._
V
0
N
N
a
L
a
_
�O0�1
o
>
iF
c
O
�
a
a
C
E�
O
I-
a)
O
a,
�V_a)Liv
p
,
Na
i
v41i
O
-
t
4-
v
OOpU
4.1
0
o
o
v
V
OO
O
p
CN
o
Lro
_
OVra
uar3Lcr�6t
ro
c
a
ov
O
V
a
0—
a
0a
v
-0
-0
c
rB
Ov
4
ON
>
O
a
a
Q
O
Ov
in
NO
Q
jLn
p
LN�:
0
v
n
(6
O
L.LNa
(nO
Ln
4-M
4.1
N
4-
Q
Ln
OUa)
sE
Coo
L
�
p
Nrt'
a
v�o
p
N
v
o
o
a
'
a
a
o
M
—
M
v
-o
v
O
v
av
y.
L
�
-a
-0
o
-C
v,
�
�
4.,-0
c
0
n
a)v,
'n
Z
(v
c—
c
�'
O
a
L
'V
t
>,
te
c
L
V
v
a
a
g
�M
u
o
-0
v,
O
O
c;-
�cb
L.)
0
L
0
Ln
V)
ro
a
v
o
i
NVyc�a
o�
o
a;L
o
aobc0
Ln
40
Ln
Q1
a
ul�
a
oO
4-
a
uN
U
3
a
+'
v
''
a
_
4-,
oo
E
o-o
°
a
2
V
L
O
c
.`^
v
N
a
CL
v-
00
c
o
Lb4
`
a
d
-0
a
Q
c
Co
a
-o
kn
4-1
CLL
�0
E
b
V
V
N
v
v"
ii
N
ON
�,
c
v
a
c
v
v
a
�_
a
c
c
Q
N
V
Q
-
v
a
a
is
O
a
00
N�
a
m
a
E
N
U
O
to
L
—_
0
v
i
�_
rp
a
O
O
rp
C
v>—
rp
O
3
E
a
u
a
s
ti
a
rO
a U
..0
I—
O
N
E
E
a
bq
L
f—
E
O
v
m
I—
L
N
�O
bA
..
,
4�
o
}=
c
a
-�e
O
cLn
L
a
Q
c
O
ut
p
r6
y=
Q
L
a
ro
o
"p
c
o
�.
-0
a._,
O
N
4-
•
O
6
X
Q�a
vcQ
4-L
>V
W
a
0
O
V
-0
O
v
pLC
o
OE
NEms0
,0
L.p
O
4-1
O
Np
a
O
.p
4-
Vca,
tko
NVA
NNt
bA'
0
v,
VO
O>E
�
N
Ln
0
a
ao
00
m
0
0
0
0
0
m
N
N
Q
00
rn
O
O
O
N
N
n
N
U
06
r-
O
O
O
N
N
n
N
v
N
C:v
aJ
4-1
M
4
v
�
aJ
MNo
O
N
M
-n
L
C
aJ
C
QJ
a)
L
4�
ra
p
v
b0
4
QJ
p
C
a)
+
O
>,
aJ
C
-04-1
�
aJ
QJ
�
+Ou
O
Q
O
L=
C
O
Q
C
.�
'6
'O
V)
4-1
0o
C
n
,�
C
>,
a)
b0
4J
QJ
L
M
v
C
+'
L
O
Q
v
Q
N
U
to
N
CC
n
in
(A
>'
0to
u
L
-0
M
�O
QJ
Q
o
L
bA
LO
QJ
C
�'
p�
4"'
a)
>,
�"
N
M
U
L
4-1
N
a�
_
Ul
b 0
C
QJ
4-
U
4--
o
L
aJ
N
�
M
C
aJ
0
NaJ
In
~
C-Cbi0
4-13
4L�
NN
r--
am�opip
QJ
+-
CQ
C
C
NV
>LJ
�b0
Ln
C:QJ
o
C—
w
3
C
C
p
r�
C
C
U
r
bA
+-'
C
N
L
-
r✓
v
in
4-
O
r 1
L
p
N�
'J
O
QJ
U
ram+
rNJ
�W
(0
4-1
-C
`�
f0
3
Q
O
C
r
v
>
In
QJ
Q
aJ
�
bA
O
4-+
'L
b0
O
QJ
N
J-r
to
L-
E
E
V
Q
O
s-
bA
L
>�
L
O
V
N
pv
Q
N
Q
O
O
N
4-
i
L
0
4-
v
4.1
rCp
N
O
O
D
C
wr6
0-C.
C
O
L
M
p
QJ
-0
L
M
v
M
v�
0O
L
N
v
4=
r6
4
N
N
iJ
m
Q
v
u
r>0
�6
QJ
�'
L
?�
O
O
v
QJ
N
U
o
C
U�
p
L
aJ
C>
•�
E
4O
QJ
aa))
-0
'-
Ln
U
in
M-0
v
N
O
O
o
w
N
v Ln
M
O
c
L
N
4-
C
rO'
QJ
b0
NO
0
v
M
O
.-
4-1
S+
C
-4-1
•M
H
Ln?
V)
C:aJ
N
C
Q1
c
M
r
OOu
xpC
Ln
p�
C
'�
M
-0
M
.
y_r
C
O
Ln
r-+
QJ
,C
.>
0
N
Q1
X
aJ
U
QJ
v
�
C
p
Q1
C
L
N
aJ
N
C
N`
L
o
�
Q
f0
M
3
ate-+
L
O
QQJJ
aJ
v
D
�-
ao
v-
o
Q
ago
~
aJ
>�
i
L
QJ
E
N
C
4-
r
—
X
N
to
v
aJ
4-+
p
C�
C
Q J
L
o
OL
p
aJ
E
QJ
N
QJ
N
N
O
QJ
U
N
V
N
M
OC
ate-+
L
U
N
N
0
v
0
Ln
v
O
II
4-1
M
mo
�
N
`^
v
o
rT�
'L
V'
0
QJ
Ul=
v~
L
v
a,
m
v
�'
v
'�
v
o
a,
o
c
o
'2
c
0L
c
�
'Z
M
0
c
o
M
1
(V
Q
o�
c
3
Ln°
�E-
Q
o
Q)
°
a
0
N
o
r-•
QJ
T
CL
n
r--
aJ
r-✓
'4-1
CvO
�
rf✓
C
Q1
am
C
C
4
>
Q
N
V
o
a)_CO
r+
M
N
p
.ul
w
E4WI
-CaJ
QN
L
i
o
QQ
QJ
QJ
O
"o
M
p
4-1
o
p
},
cp
aJ
In
V
N
L
L
L—
QJ
0
'i
QJC
+-
C
U
Q
O
QJ
r�-1
+'
>
Q
>>
aJ
QJ
O
C
O
O
-0
i
W
Q
a)
0
i
NJ
QJ
v
C
i
�
,M
ram-
n
>
O
>
o
4.•'
a1
"o
-O
o
O
r-,
O
4-
Q
Fes-
r,
�
4-
L
O
o
M
O
n3
._
O
C
v
E
M—
E
o
��
o
U
r
aJ
v
.-
rOL-
>
.0c
un
In
Q)
-
Q
i
-0
O
N
r--+
L
v
v
V7
O
C
n3
N
4-�
QJ
C
L
v
C
.�
jn
U
O
L
L
C
C
>1
QJ
v�
>
b_A
aJ
c-
rL_
N
U
v
Q
-C
.�
�
r-1
m
,�
O
L
tn
r.�
+-'
O
p
aJ
L
-O
o
U
N�
L
Ui
0
T
r�
O
o
m
U
v
v
•�
L
in
4J
+tn
'p
voi
4-
O
v
b0
C
v
L
W
N
O
N
rO�
r+
O
M
O
C)
0-
N
M
�
a)
QJ
.�
N
v
m
QJ
b0
tJ
N
�-
?j
L
C
U
O_
—_
QJ
QJ
+_
C
l0
M•�
4-1
CL
Ln
"
2
O
QJ
>
QJ
C
p
L
C
Q
O
I—
LL
v
v
Q
u.
Q.
Q,
Q
,�
Z
1—
>
4N
—
L
U-
M
a0
J✓
L C
>
41
U
-p
O
O
L
0
Vl
L
c6
U
o
—
L
Q)
rv-
p
_0
aJ
Q
p
o
w
.�
N
4-1
C
Q
E
C
i
C
o
Q)
Q1
'-
0
o
to
m
aJ
o
Coo
v
O
V
C
O
O
U—
v
O
n3
O
>,.-m
L
o
m
�
M
N
a�
>
C
�,
—
v
r✓
C
v
E
C
C�
C
'U
d0 U�
0 _
O
LO
QJ
E
V
QJ
L
>2
>
aJ
aJ
V
�
C
Q1
v
r--+
L2
M
ram--+
N
LL
-0
i)
�
C
_V
to S
N
L
C
v
0
N
•�
N
•�
N
�N
OC
r4C
N
v
E
o
t'Jii
N
Q
O_
4=
o
.Ln
cn
d•
Ln
Ln
4-
0
N
aJ
b0
M
d
20
m
0
O
0
0
O
l� 1
N
N
Q
co
00
cn
O
0
0
N
N
N
U
00
r-
Q0
0
0
0
N
N
d'
N
C
H
.4)
u
u
m
O
i�
:E
X
W
O C a) L
L
4'' +-� •� to � �-+ r6 N � C 4-
O Q ra 4- N O O in
ro N W Ln O - O Q p O Ln O N 1 L
m ELn 0 0 4-1 rN 0o C N- ba.� O4-1 C v�-+)O b�0
u� v ° � a
� N a p E c -a > v, _Q 4-1 u l7 --
C O C N C N o rn to
Q N v E a, r o a) c E N 0 � o -�
ro o v c Q v a, v, '� c o C) ao 0� v ra
N O j a) C ra N a) v ra L 6 m N ro c
Lto L a) vi F- to (a> 4- C O -C N C O 4�
a) L a1 E L C bQ O F- L c C�— r6 +' - LlO C aJ v�
Q o ca L o ro 0 w m= Q V v E ul
QJ >, o � b0 a)4-1 L ra v y'' Q N
ra v Q -O a) ra •i r6 p v O E 0 ra a) L y a) O O
a) E �, � o 4" E N a, �� N E Q c
C: ra ra 3 0
a v v Ln o E
L 4-1 > � C vi � � C C � ra v � -1-' `� a) o p C
p> 0 v, ca cat L Q o o a >� ai
tLo o ra Q a) L (V ro �, ° lJ N : ,m m > 4.1
W >, v ra ca Q Q C° �, Q +,
c c o o a ° ul E u �' o a) a) E o o ca o0 o f -o w
c �
v4-1 43 X v N v c o E
v v v' ' v ra o aJ 'n ra ra
E ao E L' tn� > o a) rn E p o ra Q � .c
4-1
N O ra L> a) E E vi c o
p O O Q C i C Q 4 'E O bA u-
a) � QJ ra L a) (�/� L U4-1 C N
O C Cp 'i a) vui M C O E N Ln rA
O
,� 4- C Q O Q- O i O Op ra 4• E N
4-1 a) O p L a) C '� C O a)
E a) a) L O L ra -Q Q-
ra aJ C 4' ra V O o> m bA E C O a) 4'
rn L L p vn 4 v� ra 4-1 L 4-1 O rn C Q p C .N >,
4-1 N 3 ,J v Ln v v Q occ : 'm o o
Vl O ra L 0 L L L L .N N G i-+ L '� rya
v, a E a, 4- ca v o 0 0 L Q V a,
Q- 4� � Q a1 C Q> CA N a1 O 4.1 LL Q -p CO O
u �i LL L 2 u 0 A a_ O >, C Q s 1_ Q) nJ C O C
> v, v 2 Q E S N o ao ao
0 ram- > a) C c6 Q > O L E O N m O r C
Ln N LL O N _0 O >u a) v 4-1 L a) - Q 'L E ra a
N ram-+ N > rn O vui >, E vi C +� a) O
0 >p C ry a) 0 No v N E u. �o ro v •N I— m ca E 0
O> N aJ Q C c ON iJ E Q - ca C O O Q
0 O v .0 ate- a-+ 2 O E� � N v) E.
m C m-0 O iJ ra L P L
ra r6 4- " a) c vim- O a1 a) rC6 N O p O
u O C 4, LL .0 '� p O u b0 (A> N Q v) ca •� p a)
C to N L L C C to a) a) Q
o o o _0 N o_ a) a) v i V, v c rn E v E ao E a) v
C N M C: 0 NN bC0 E E�—> N C X O Q ra >; '�' X v�
aJ V> U -oa v '� 'v—i Q 4' C o a) ra in oN U E L
4.1 O 'rn E ca ca O v, vi c L ra a) bv'o a Y 41-0 0 v O o ra 1
m v L Co 4- Q L aI i-+ ra m *z_- L l-1 u
ro
> X E o ro ° .Q °� o° a) O a > E
ra ra L +� O L O L
v 4- Q) Q rn v, � 4 � Q ¢ rn LL v v 0- Q f— Q a_ � —
4-1
p c C Q rn
o'� Q� v a0o� Q4-1
O u C N 4-
L� 4-1 °0 O-o Emw E E
ao
p u 1 O v, ra E -a a)
o Q
G v C .x c N Q--0 N n
L>L a) Q ra a) Vi aJ L w a)
N -o 0a) CL E� N O eO.o -o u Q E v
N p C C) O 'L L E E a
p i p 4- c) O L 0- L a) Z3 a)
N Q u u 0 N 0 " in Q_ 41 4-1 rn O
Ln
r
4-
0
M
a)
ao
ro
a.
CA
a)
LA
-o C
a
>
v
=
�
-
L
"
O
u
D
4-
4-1>�>
a)
V
�
bA
�
O
�
�
O
L
rL6
Q)
�O
Ln
4)
�
'�--
�
LL
Q)
-
�
�
�
Q
C
00
4-1
a1
E�
"�
N
Q
N
O
N
V
Q
M
.�
rO
O
Ln
p
a)N-0
O
E
0
6
o
L
D
N
O
v-
o
in
a)
Ln
4�
s
4-m
C
4-
i-�
vOi
a)
0
4-1O
f6
`�
c
L
N
-O
Q
L
C
c6
—
a)
-C
N
>1
•�
4-1
i
N-
',
C
--
N
C
r6
v
O
O4-1
O
>+
00
c-
p
vt
C
V
ra
-p
aJ
Ln
N
aJ
a-+
O
O
r0
to
to
p
O
O
O
O
C
.�
+
Ut
O
N
u
i,
Ln
�
cb
O
O
'L
O
v
4-'
�'
u
0
U
�
a)
v
v
0
m
C
L
o
O
a)
L
O
r0
Vl
a)
.�
Q
N
L
4-
f6
3_0
a)
vi
p
Q
L
O
a)
C
r,3
vv,
3
a)
`'—
o
C
li
>
0
4'
o
Vl
o
a)
0
C
�U-+
C
Q
c
41
ra
LL
C
Q
L
L-
a)
V
LnL
4—
>
V
L
a1
a)
v
a�
c�
�
E
r�
O
.N
4-1
as
-0
v
"
o
>m
rCCa
o
w
L
a1
U
G
)
=
L.
o
C
Q)
Q)
�
L
a1
>
p
L
ate)
C
-o
b.0
L
.�
L
1-+
L
Ul
'�
a1
N
U
O
4C
4E
rB
0
Q-
."Q
C
U
�
0
O
�
C
4-1
In
Vl
o
(�
ai
y�.�
QJ
N
V)
N
V
O
-C
L
ru
m
O
C
N
i
a)
Q
a)
U-
a)
p-0}'N
�o��
�
��
�0Q���-v
30V)
v c
o
o
v
�
O_
WL
>C
z
°>o
o
O
Q
j
Nr
b0ro
F
i�
vroraCr-
q0-
Ln
O
v
O
4-1
1
—
_O
E
m--
kA
.0
X
�
+
-0
O
L
�v
Ul
0
0
4—
p>
6
-
U
r-
C
w
40
-0C
>
i
OU
i
OL
Q
O
V-
LA
p
aJ
er
m,NO
a
CL
>
NQu>
'_
p
-
0ro
O
w
op
OC
ZaN)
�j
O
n
W
�
'a)
L
O
I—
>,
aJ
C
O
a)
F,
C
V)
V
O"
v
�
t(�L
N
iO
L
O
a)
o
a)
aJ
a)
C
L
O
.
>
aJ
-0
4-
V)
t/01
4-1U
>>
vpi
O
ra
L
O
m
a1
�
C
>
N
i
N
3
ate-.+
'J
Ln
�
vOi
-
N
O
rp
H
i
C
•N
N
J
N
Y
LO
N>
L
a)
>
•N
N
in
�
i
i
N
-0
o
O
>'
0
2
01
�i
v
O
v
v
v
�
-
.Q
>
4-
o
0
vi
Qa)
�
-r-
4-1
-
�
-C-
�>p
C
N
UQ
rp
c;--i
aJ
n
4-1
L
0
4.1
ice.
a)
L.L
U
V,
NN
-
v)
�
b
o
a)
4,1
Ln
-C
o
�
a)
OCI-
6
O
.LIn
Ln
N
bA
O
U
VI
L
V
C
NJ
aJ
L
V1
V
rp
r6
a)
aJ
a)
�-
-Q
a-
L-
U
-C
N
C
C
a)
C
a)
�,
U
O
a)
>
U
O
r
s
0
a)
U
0>
4-�
o
O
V
V
aJ
>,
u
O
N
N
a)
m
G
m
3
a✓
0
>
o
o
,i
v>
3
v
a;
v
v
a)
°
vi
-O
o
ai
p
N
v
v
O
E
-C
F-
"O
Q
o
C=
O
I-
•V
-O
�-
v
L
O
-0
Q
a
N
O
v
>,
v,
O
>
aJ
O
CI-
L
a✓
a✓
v
�
c:
v
v
v
0
a>
v,
O
ut
L
i
'�
O
V
a)
O
L
OL
O
a✓
r6
•�
a1
ro
O
O
L
O
O
Ln
E
�,
N—
a.,
4-'
�
a�
'6
p
O
a�
a)
v
L
I
bA
H
rp
?>
N
O
C
,
C
3
ra
v—
N
O
O
�b0
f°
Ul
o
>,
v
bA
-0
o
3
o
-C
avi
1
-Cp
ate,'
°CJ
v
v
v
o
v
>
C
a)
L
v
-C
>1
>
L
a;
L
-C
N
N
4-1
M
v)
�'
i-1
NC
a)
C
O
L
N
C
p
N
N
O
a1
O
l)
C
O
O
O-
-1
b0
LbA
O
N�
N
L
L
bA
N
Q
N
p
3
�
N
C
`^
O
ra
O
t5o
00
C
Ut
O
0
a)
'p
r6
Q
u
-0
a,
La
L
E
N
+-
v
v
>
p
�,
.�,
o
Q
p
0
a)
O
a)
+
ro
O
a
O
00
Q
E
E
N
L
u
C
4-
Q
p
E
—
C
L
Q
L
Q
v,
N
i
F-
O
()
C
iJ
t-
a)
*_
o
L
a)
QJ
00
rn
Ln
T-
4-
O
d
v
b-o
m
O
O
0
O
O
(� 1
N
d'
N
Q
00
rn
0
0
0
N
N
N
U
00
r-
0
O
0
N
N
ri
N
bA
v
aJ
�
v
,
a.l
r
m
0
E
EE
di
'>O
N1
O
V)
O
O
O
t
4.1
-pp
V
u4-1
C
O
V)
a)N
>-
OC
C
ro
N
O
N
i
O
C
C
>
O
O
O
CL
a
O
i
u�w
m
a
N
4z
O
O
u
4-
6
0-O)�
L
4.1
a
a1C
O
C
4-1O
+-
'
E
-C
c
v
c
Oc
rCo
dJ
p0cL
E
O
C
`�-
0)
>,
p
w
c
v
D
6
u
E
C
>
ro
�
Ln
a)
L
4-
C
p
4--�
bA
p
o
Q
V)
`n
aJ
LL
rli
..0
L
a1
>
QJ
M
C
4-1
a)
Q
U
C
ra
`�
U
4
C
O
to
C
O
ru
u
ru
a)
.O
vC)N
N
LL
O
ro
4,
u
4�
O
v
U
4
ON
a)
O
CL
p
(Q1)
V)QO
ro
-Q
4-1
O+
O
3
u
p6
v-
a)
V
C
a
M
a)pOV
LO
Q
U
V)O
L-
O
N
-0
�O
U
O
Q_0
C_0-
LO
�bA
�-
�O
v
=
v
N
�
r�
�
U
i
v
a
�'
-0
c
C
pQ
C
V
O
dO
'5
O
W
LL
OLV)O
in
�
C6
v
Q
O
V)
CV)
v
�
p
-r-
r
U
C
p
4
N
O
a)
N
w
a)
L
bA
mbAb
u
C
p
C
O4-1
O
VIMOM-n
Y
)
+I
aCpO
C
W7
Ll-
t
�
�
+
�
U
i-
C
to
�
n
-p
n
1Na
r6
Na)
O
N
:3•
L
L
.�
C
V-
w
�
Q
v
�
F""
4-1
L
o
u
i-�
E
a)
E
O
E
E
p
E�
v
.`�
v
v
v
a)
p
E�
v
'a,
v.>_
o
a)
v
O
°n'
U
a;
O
�
a,
c
E
_5
w
�,
c
v
L
4-1
QuuJ
Q)
4-+
O-
v>
O
OL
-r
E
a)
j
—
C
v
C
v
-C-
U
E
v
��
v
o_
�
�-
o
o
c>�
v
p_
a)
M�
r
w
�
vi
-0
O
Q
'L
0
O
>
QJ
ra
a)
bb
Ln
v)
E
O
N
N
L
E
c
a)
U
'>
U'
O
O
O�
O
Q
C
N
C
L
C
N
pra
E
p_6
O
N
N
LJ
Q)
n
m
�_
-On_
-�i
4-'
w
5
�
L
4-
p
y-
v
ru
a)
r+
N
N
C
7
In
Zi
C
O
O
a)
O
O
>�
tn
p
a)
c
m
E
to
O
V)
�
O
E
E
>
N
'>
L
w
L—
u
a
O
L
O>_0
V
c
:�
j5
(V
t
c
v
a)
L
v
4-1
>
7
Q-
v>
V
.>
>
L
c
4-
O
�
O
Q
C
>
+�
r
C
.r0
-0
.>
+-,
N
a)
f6
''
0-
Ul
a)
v
LL
.0
�
Q)
C
"-
Q
c
a
N
M
4-�>
�
a)
a)
u
E
u
4
v.—
O
mL
C
O
N
O
E
E
u
p
Xa+
O
Q
p6
+ -
O
L
AM
C
v
-0
)
O
N
C
Ln
)
m�
U
a-
O
v
m
N
-0
0
In
ra
Or-
C
in
C
Q
'Q
a)
v_
v
a1
a)
4-
C:
i)
'i
E
aJ
C
N
aJ
E
(V
Q)
i
a)
Ul
O
4-1
-0
O
C
00
E
C-
V)
m
O
�
: -3
•u
:
N
p
N
�
�
O
O
a)
•>
�
Q
>
>
1
V)
C
U
N
Q
�,
r_r_
v-
0-
c
y'p,
to
Q
v
N
to
a
O
L
p
N
a)
a)
ro
is
M
p
ram--+
Q a)
r0
a)
u
in
N
N
p
bA
O
L-0—
a)
-C
—_
O
p
E
+-'
C
l6
C_
vi
C
L
a)
p
L
in
V)
ra
�
v
4-
L
a)
Q
C
3
`�
U
C
c
r6
r>6
u
U
(O
-p
L
•O
S_.
0
L
O
L
c6
L
>
a)
r-
W
a)
C
a)
u
f�
O+
V)
>
v
O
u
Q O
r0
-0
Q
Ln
O
�
76
i
p
+
aJ
a
O
p
O
10
p
E
>
C
O
aJ
_
Vl
O>>
O
E
C
p>
L
Q
O
L
L
N
v)
w
u
m
u
F-
—
+J
u
w
H
o
ro
c
f-
r✓
L
v
L
aJ
C
4-1
4
(U
C:
+-1
,✓
Ln
i
O
a)
In
C
'U
aJ
`°
0
N
O
.+�
•V)
-C
v
L
OO
-0U
m
N
L
cLp
N
Q
C
Q L
V)
E
>'
a,
T
c
O
a,
LnE
p
v�
u
C
p.�.>-
V)
ra
3
in
a,
r-
c
O
C:
C
_0r✓
m
3
c
vi
c--
>
O
L
p
V)-
E
4-1
-0
ro
aoQ•-
W
M`�-
O
U
m
a)
O
C
a)
�
Q
m
(6
N
C
LL
O
a) L
E
a)
V
v-o
E
Z)
c
b-0
L
L
p
U
m
p
p
U
m
N
r0
Q
�O
a)
N
�
ul
C7
a)
'O
N
C
a)
r-�
C
m
rp
Q +I
C
L
F
a)
C
p
Ul
V)
in
rB
m
p
u
0
Q
u
O
r
�
LA
r
O
Ln
ra
a -
So
(Y)
O
O
O
O
O
M
N
d'
N
Q
4
00
rn
O
O
O
N
N
N
u
00
r-
Q0
0
0
0
N
N
n
N
L
C �
O �u
'f
o u
U m
m �
o c
�
XO
Q.
W O
u
s
76-
O
a)
3:
O
m(
L
o
c
o°
aN,
u-
(Av
0)a
v
E
C:c
o
o
� 0
a,
c-
4-
O-0
w
N
d
Q
.v
>'
�
~
E
C
0,0
v
—
0-
Fodo
C)
b�0
ate'
Ln
N
J
QJ
i
�
4-
E
•�
c
0
�
cr
In
of
v
r-+
u
:3
E_
E c
(0
4)
v
4J
V
c
bCA
E
0
O
(A1
ro
L
00
N
N
N
Q
o
Q
o
p
a)
�'
O
N
0_
Q
C)
N
a
>,
v
E
-0
`�
U
c
o
0
0
O
N
Q
N
bA
v>
.�
N
4J
r
U
Ul
,O
p
N
N
Q
O
E
O
p
L
vt
N
L
U
c
O
0�
i�
w
L
4J
4-1 Y
bA N
L
'�,
E
L
tp
v
Q
ro
u
4J
iJ
�
�
Q
O
N
a�J
N
C
N
Q
c J
(0
4-
a)
>
C
r0+
C
�
S
�
�
�
dJ
4J
0
ro
N
p
�'
m
Y
N
Ln
p
v
N
b�0
4J
'. ;
4-,
v,
�0
a1
O
+
IS
Q
J
Q
N
�'
V)
N
�
+-
41
C
'�
>
O
0
bo
ON
4J
0
(A
ru
E
44-1
�
N
w
-�
aj
�
u
w
V)
D
N
0
D
�
N
�
O
N
0
i
�
�
�
ao
4-
D
0
_c
N
`^
�
N
v
ao
0
a-
�
°
Ln
•�
c
�
v
c
Q
v
C:
0�o-
C:
c
E
3
°1
v
a
E
v
CL
ao
ao
V)�
v
c
N
v
o
0
E
-
v
L
v
E
v
L
v)
E '�
.0
C
L
.0
N
ro
N
4=
p
N
O
O
co
Q
rp
'�
lJ
V
o
L
4J
(o
V)
Q
aJ
4J
V)
4J
C)
o
c
�a
+,
a
c
v,
-p
E
V
v
�^
O
.�
E
°
o
c
a;
v
Ln
N
4
+�
v
0
a
L
'�
4J
o
Q
-C
'L
>
c
0
>
.�
v
O
E
u
C
w
c
m'
E ao
O
f°
(o
v
E
L
O
x
a,
E
C
`°
0
`�
a1
L14
4J
0
a,
O
v
4J
L
v
O
ao
4-
Q
E
QJ
r
Q)
v
a
—
a)
c_
o
p
c
w
Q
�,
Ln
O t
E
y
°
b-0
c
4J
c=
T
vi
O
dJ
'L
to
4J
0
'�!
�
.—
v
a1
0-
41
U
L
ro
N
�'
a
c
L
E
�—�,
o
v
U
Q
M E
'+�
E>m
-o
v;
a)
v
n'
o
v
o
o
v
E
o
.�Lfl
L
Ln
L1
s
.�
E
Y
v
-
s—
L
,u
,u
(U
E
o
�,
'E
v
v
c
E
v,
O
v
c
X
E
c
4
-0
ro
V)
v
L%
�
+'
i��
v
Q
Q
U
v)
QJ
�
v
L
N
N
4-
p�
ZS
4-
U
V
p
N
0
•�
E
v
O
4-1
Ul
4-
�+
N
LA
a,
�„
o
m
E
O
v,
E
�
�,
.N
N
.�
O
�
NN
.
a
W
�
ram-+
m
i
p
-C
C
ON
>>
�
m
a)
m
m
�
a,
�
E-
o
41
QJ
4-1
i
ram-+
O
�
a
�
�
�'
-0
�
O
�
�
�
o
o
+�
0
O
m
N
`z
i—
v)
N
C
0
.0
E-a
ut
u
O
QJ
C
O
�
CM
41
m
V)
C
Q�
r,
L
�
�
-b
a1
>
m
m
,_
LL
L
o m
L
m
w
(o
v=
4J
+'
v
w
N
C
V)
w
a-
E
ro
Q
4-'
�
�
L
3
> v
v)
v
m
a
Q
V
N
v
)
('Q
0
�7
Ln
v
'0
E
3:
>,
X
(V
c
c
m
v
>,
—
o� 4-1
0
o
vt
o
m
bU
C
V
O
l7
Y 3
N
N
Y
N
v
v,
ao
c
ro
>
O
L
>,
aJ
_C
to
p
N 0
,
.N
v,
v
C
N
do
'
N
o
v,
v)
v
r
Q
N
i
4-
>,
41
ru,
'J
O
N
O
Q
E
10
�
i>
(U
-C
C
N
N
(p
Q "0
E
N
Q
a)
V,
4•-+
4J
4.1
�
aE
O
0
z
C
m
�E
O
o
t
-m�,���->,a�14-
C
O-C
N
C
OL
C>
E>
m4-1
QJ
L��-�
QJ
N
o
L
Q
4-
0 3
C
v, v
4-1
>�
aJ
a)
� O
4=
Lnr0
0
m
v
O
O
-p
L
p
._
_
w
O
N
Ln
Ln Ln
Ln
to
v
LL
M
Ln
L
o
to u
V)
v O
Ln
r-m Ln
U
C >,
>'
LJ
p
4-'
Ln
0
w
0 .Q
4)
N
V)
0-Q
v)
Y
M
p
4-
Um
C
p
0V)
p
m
C
0
aJ
0
M
N
aL-
v
Q
LL
00
>,
2
0
v
Lo
i
L
Q
O
CDU
C
O
.�
N
(Y)
Ln
0
v
b-0
ro
a
1
(n
O
O
O
O
0
lYl
N
N
Q
00
rn
O
0
O
N
N
d'
N
U
00
0
0
0
N
N
d'
N
p
O
aN)
a)
_0
a)
v
Sao
Vi
+-'
v
o
v
2�
v,
,�,
c
c
•c
Z)
L
E
N
u
O
bA"-
U
O
Q
Q)
o
N
p
N
t
N
-0
M
Y
L
>,
O
N
Q)
C
N
p
a)
O
V)
L
v
i
QJ
Vi
-0
++
m
4.
a1
4--+
4-1
to
O
O
v
ro
ro
vi
>
'�
C
O4-1
�-
L
L
N
Ln
a'
�
u
Q)
c
N
C
rrl
�
p
'n
0
u
�
J
aJ
V)
+_
�
4-
�
m
Q
In
v"
>
Q
c
q-
v
c
V)
Ul
L
N
C:
Q)
i
C
4
N�
O
;
•aJ
U
-0
�
ro
O
v
C7
X
+��
v
Q
c
Q
bt0
c
U
L1
0
o_
0
N
a)
v
0
ut
ns
a
>,
E
s
0
O
.N
N
o
Q
c"
LA
4-
Ln
o
c
O
v
>-0
Ln
0
a)
m
4"
U
Q
+
4-
p-C
1
n
4-4,
a)
c
cV)
V
rNo
�
N
Q
LV)
aaO
teE
O
O
O
N
a-+
O
pUt
+'
C
C
N
.'-
a)
4-1
�
a)
i
E
U
-0
m
bc�0
N
O
O
O
O
�-
a)
_0
E
U
v
v
a)
.-
N
v
r6
L
aJ
v
v
O
''
v-
a)
Q
p
>
a)
�
_
a)
r6
b 0
Q)
L
L
N
!
4.1
�
LA
a�
p
to
p
N
c
co
,Ln
v
~
'�
_0
>)
p
N
C
c
a--+
C
N
v
V
Q
�i
L.
O
N
L
�O
v
'tj
L
E
�
'C�
L
a)
N
O
a)
o
c
An
b0
a,
3
u°
Ln
Q
c
0r
+-'
m
ao
c
o
4-1
ro
i
Q-
Q)
N
Cn
�O
O
c
C
N
Q
Vl
_
N
Ln
tom.
O
>�>
1
�
—
O
O
>,
N
N
ro
M
Q
Q
E—
in
in
N
c
O
N
a)
E
l7
v
Q)
�n
U
u
L
11
O
L-
N
O
c
.Ln
Q
ut
ro
O
p
ro
O
L
v
_L,
O
u
U
>,
a,
v,
N
v
+�
3
ra
u
E
-c
O
v
>
Q
41
�
c
-p
E
�
°
O
v
'-
v
o
v
Q
N
Vi
a.
v,
a)
E
L
°
c
E>
ro
i
Q
O
O
VQ)
Q)
V)
j
L
Lc
Mu
c-,
e
L
L-Ca)
4-1
X
O
Q
m
ov
C
LOi
L
0
ro
+�
r6
v®
n
O
bcA
0
O
4-1
a)
.>
U
a✓
0
LL�
O
N
ro
c
p
,N
O
p
a)
p
QJ
N>
N
O
-O
��
'�
Q
p
O
O
>
ro
N
-O
L
aJ
N
p
-p
p
ro
L
O
E
v
�,
L
c
a-'
v
E
>
Q)
m
a
>,
°
Q)
v
i o
3
�
.i
>,
a
v
Ul ru
ate'
Q
�o
�
�-
3
—
rv-
�
r
—
Q)
—
Ina-
c
f-
•F''
�_
i"S'
�--+
E
_
U
O
o
-o>
a
p
c
V
o-0
ua)
o�_.
O
U
F-
vi
u
a,
0
E
a✓
ro
L
_
Q
4-1
ro
E
Q
N
O
m
c
v
0
o
0
O
up
L
u
-p
N
.')
N
O
c
N
O
v
ro
a)
Q)
O
4-
E
aA
ro
a)
®
O
v
3
O
,v
N
o
L
p
LtuJ
>
>
O
N
c
'_
'_
c
u
E
Ln
!'
u
ro
O
N
°)
�
O
O
O
�,
ao
Q
o
ro
a)
L
M
L-0
r—°
c
c
O
+�
u o
,,_
c�
3
-o
p
Q
v
v
E
N°
-0
�
m
.0
3
c
F
Q
a)
.0
c
c
s
a)
t
bo
I-_
_rZ
E
O®
3
rp
v
N
i
aJ
p
O°
ra
N
.N
3
Li
ape
u
,_
v
C
u
E
Q
c
o
a�
a✓
N
E
J)
N
N
a)
Q
-O
ut
VO
-0
O
i
-
-0
V1
-0
N
Q
V)
c
3
ro
-
p
Q)
''
-
C
to
C
Q�
ate-+
Q)
O
Q
C
L
a�
O
O
a)i
N
�,
�
ro
O
�,
C
�,
p
L
c
;.-
�,
'Q
v
C
c
C
O
E
U
v
a~
4-
c
a�
v
+-
.0
a�
0
0
M
},
v
c
v
D-
u
o
E
o
v
u
u
U
.c
v
p
E
c
L
>,
Q)
�,
a)
c
r"C-
a)
u
_0
O
P°
-p
Q
U
N
U
v
4,
-
0
a
v
Q)
v
`�
m
a
Q
aj
v,
m
N
m
v
m
v
'n
c v
b`6o
a✓
Vi
a)
-0-C
c
ro
E
a)
a)
c
c
C
v
Q
a,
2
E
O
v
v
v
0
+-
v
''�
E
m
E
0
E.�
'�
O
QE.�u
>
p
E-C
o
v
�
F
t
F-
Q
ro—
E-
o
ro
LA
a
�.-��4-0-0
a✓
4-
4-
-0
a)
L
L
�
O
O
N
O
Q)
.
a)
a)
N
V
0
Q)
4-+
v
m
M
0
N
o
f
E
N
v
o
0
o
o
>
0
�O
Ln
-
Q
w
LA
V)
4_
c"
ro
0
�
L
LL
v
"�
V
N
u
ro
c
(o
y..,
ut
ro
p
m
Q
+
L
V
O
V)
Q)
4-
N
c
o
c
ro
L7
Ql
L
>�
a.�
�-
u
i
Q
L
0
l0
_
C
a
O
G
•in
vim-
-
_
ro
a-+
�_
Q
_
o
Q>
E>
E
c
4-
°
L
v
u
o
v
a
ao
E
a)
Vl
E
L
a)
a)
L
-0
o
U
4-1
ro
ro
V
c
'�-�
00
�n
l0
L
V
v
p
OV
L
a)
ro
v
V)
�'
p
a
aJ
ro
>O
-
0"
v
o
0
0_
�
E
V)
Ln
a
—_
ro
'O
a)�
C
v
C
4-1
Q)
>
>
O
Q
Q
L
Q
O
Q
QC1
L
O
o
E
E
E
a
to
�'Nv
+L
aC
i
v
uE
'
u
OU
3
O
v
c
0
v
3
L
cn
0
0
0
0
0
m
N
d'
N
Q
4
ra
m
0
O
O
N
N
mot'
N
V
00
O
O
O
CV
N
N
G LA
O •u
•u
a
u m
m °_
O •�
4J
Q �
6L
O
CL
W O
u
r—
o
�
'�'
a,
w°
-
a,
°v
ra
r6
o
4-10
r6
C
>
N
�
V)�
rn
0}
C
t6
c
aJ
C
r6
u
0
L+
0
,�
O
Q
rn
v
C
Q
i
N
C
Q-
-
_C
C
N
.-
w
C.
N
O
t6
'�
N
bA
C
O
Q
Q
C
(0
N
o
Q-
_0
Q
>
o
�•+
o>
r6
U
a
4
a,
-0�
3
Q
N
L
rn
r6 a)
�
ro
0
Q
C
°
E
aJ
`�
a
ra
-C
pOlo
4, >
L
�
+�
o
rn
,Ln
Q
v
o
�
o
u
Q
0
Q
rarn
o
o
rr
-0
0
a
rn
C
4-
;--
�
v
o�
Q
�
0
O
vH
-0
,
4
C
aJ
Q
b-0
�
��
0C
O
L
LLalC
L
-
E
u
u
ro
CLO
u
ro
4.1
o
>
O
ur
n
•r-6
0 0
Cp
O
4-1
ro
Q-
Q
A
Q.
N
-0
C: CO
L
`�= N
>
bA
m
a)C
F-
.—
al
>
aJ
�
v
p
a)
L
r0
QJ
L
p
Q
N
O
`I-
N
>,
�
N >,
ro
r6
4.1
rp
>,
Q
a
_0
a
3
>
3
v
4-
C
f6
-0
m>
.E
1�
•�
a)
rn
c
E
_0
C
�
°'
o
v
0
-0
�'
-0
°a)
o
v
a
v
°
o
�
o
v `6
m
v
°, �'
C
o
a,
r6
�
r6
L
aJ
L
V
o
a)
�
d
�_
r6
-0
�,
M
V
L
aJ
-
L
�-
"
LO
ro
.N ro
t�/1
L
L
'=
N
U
.'�
to
au'
L
�y
QpU
O
L
0
m3
ava'
N
u
>,
U>
o
m
E
1-0
o
nO
{'
p
3�
C)
L
o
4-
4-1
ov-
�QC
a)
rn
o
n
Z;-
a)
J
Ln
N
L
aJ
p
_0
�
6
Ln
>1
Q
aC
-1
4-'
r
L
)
(V
4-0
Q
p
o
C
CO
�-1
M
a-
E
v
i
p
0
(V
Q
d
r6
_
by
rn
L
�
-0
�
v
� -
�
�
O
V)
ro
-0+�
a,
o
N
,�
°o
o
oLn
O
3
Ln
C:
.—
w
o..
CA-0
o
�,
v
v
E
v
0
c
r6
Z3 C
v0
a)
z
a)
41
C
f6
u
0
0
a)
>,
�
�--+
.�
r6
O
•N
L b.Q
L
I.L
_
Y
:
Q
N
Q
Q
4+
�
Q
O
aJ
LLn
--
N
O
C
.0
a)
�
C
p
C
.�
i
�+v-
C
r6
O
aJ
r0o
W Q
p
QLJ
O
h
O
0
.�
aJ
L
a-J
L
0 p
p
L
r6
r6
L_
aJ
Q
N
C
C to
'Q
E
rD
N
E
ro
4-C
`a
C
to
ro
v
1
a)
rn
r6
L
v
aJ
a)
r-
v
p
v
vMv
-0
�
EE
E
06
)
v
0"
a,
E�
4-1
p>
a,
O
-C
4-1
4-1
QO
�
4
N
�
Q N
4-1
ate-
11
M
IS
E
aJ
r6
al
�
r6
C
o
C
C
C
C
two
v
Q L
a)
v
44
r6
p
E
'J
N
..2
L
�
a,
C
v
0
�'
0
�
❑
OL
'-
In
C
'O
E
0
C
'-
4J
to
rn
-p
bA
0
E
C
E
o-
C
rn ra
"p_
rn
L
�-
-p
C
C
�,
O
L
-Q
C-C
_0
C
ro
L
a
v
rn
Q O
0�
>
-0
C
rn
-0
aJ
Q
c:
4-
`2
b 0
O
ice+
0
4-1
r6
N
N
aJ
v
U
0
O
C
U
0 p
U
C
-O
+�
t),o
r-
C a1
U
to
to
3
V
Q
4=
C
E
U
C
U
r6
�
+.'
C
b4
ra
C
0
C
U
>
aJ
a1
Q
QO
00
V
m
m
O
_
�
Ln
m
'O
a)
O
v
m
p-
W
a)
a)
_0
4-1
i
Q
�
+-'
•-
Q-
� u
Q
v
a1
r�6
n
.�
�'
.
N
�
�'
-
ra
c
Q
Q
E
z
Q
a
vQ,
.N
O
C
>
v
rn
a)
''
L
al
y_
p
Ln
C
aJ
L
al
�
O E
�-+
-C
w
•C
C
O
"
C
i
0
i?
4J
�-J
�
.
O
C
m
E
4
ON�
v
O
Q
0-
N
6
.
J
n
Oa
4C
E
ra)�
-Q
+
0
2
a)
C
toC
Q
L
O
m
0:�03
NN
OL
0
L
Q
u
C
3
Q
N
O
a
C
0
>
>
aJ
>
aJ
v
O-
0
r6
D
a1
p
O
c
D
p v
M
`M
L
L
r$a
O
Q
v
N
O
i
O
Q
v
C�
0>
N
4.1
L
Q
S
yQ+
>�
>
r6
L
L
-
C
N
c0
Q
aJ
—
O
aJ
a-+
>,
In
L L
r6
E_
r6
4.1
U
aJ
r6
'
r6
LLLL
>
O
VI
Q-
❑
L
>,
3
E
a
O
In
U
-C
'
a�
+�
C
E
N
4�-+
�?
N
a)
Q
N
+'
Q
Q
C
r0
C
+ �O
N
r6 vi
�
v
❑
>
N
N
a)
v
L
r6
L
v
N
a1
C
p
v
0
a)
O
E
Z
.a0
Q.
r
O
C
r6
m
E
6-
QQJ
-0
�
O-
-
�
0
L
o
N
-:::I-
r6
ate-+
ram-.+
h
.N
4-
00
01
Fr-,
�-
N
N
N
LA
0
00
a,
ao
M
m
O
O
O
O
O
M
N
r\
d'
N
Q
d•
00
m
O
O
O
N
N
n
N
U
00
r-
Q0
O
O
O
N
N
n
d'
N
c
O
LA
O •u
•u �
C u
u m
m o
O •=
4J
Q 11
� L
O
X
W O
u
C
V)i
O
o
°
a,
�
+
U
N
O
�
a)
�
CO
N�
N
N
u
p
�
U
tO
N
N
aJ
L
H
O
p
ate-+
M
Ln
v0
aJ
�
v
>_
b0
O
Ln
O
Q
av,'
m
N
LA
c
M
rp
4
0
U-)
al
O
o
o
O
aJ
°
V)
N
'_
21
aJ
Q
{—
v
O_
vi
�
O
c
O
�
�
-
v
E
X
-0
E
'-1
E
v
O
N
L
O
vi
�
_0
aJ
Ln
�
aJ
4-
�
4.1
a1
�
aJ
N
�
in
4
O
>
c
N
O
�
C
�
O
'
�
Ln
(U
N
4=
L
0-
-C
i
c6
-
L
O
O
C
,�
E
v_
ro
Ln
c
tA
b-0
to
ate1
N
v
�
�
�
�
C�
G
�
"
C
�
II
�
O
v
v
.�
C
O
vi
Qc
'�
m
E
L
v
"�
v
i�
QN
C
M
�
E
aEo
ai
o
m
a)
O
o
m
°
a�
v°
V
ao
'5
a)
•L
V)
O
,. ,
4-
�
L
u
t
E
L
O
L
Q-
a1
a1
�b 0
N
O
O
d
i
u
a1
N
O�
aJ
C
u
v_0
•Q
O
C
O
bA
O
L
O
L
c
N
a1
U
a)
O_
L
N
�
cb.0r�6
y i
a
(A
A
L
-�
+-+
OU
E
aJ
oaf)
_O
C
O
aJ
"O
4.1
7
-0
r
v
O
v
O
rp
iJ
a1
N
L
N
t6
l0
a)
4.,
CL
L
,xNbA
QCrB
p
ru
a
aLJ
Oa)
L0
O
r6
�-1
�O
m
,
Qi
a)
M
n
o
°
n�
0
-0
>-°m
4-1
E
-0
E
.Oao
CaJ
,;p
-0C
Ln
ro
>
4-1
c
(„c
4�
c
O
,O
O
a)
c
Q
N
p
O
va)
M;W
rn
M
�
4-
E
L
s
Q
E
L
a,
-0
L
N
C
�,
CL
�,
L
Q
C
L
O
0
0
b�0
N
a)�
fl
O
v
a)
O
0-0
E
O
a)
a1
N
aJ
C
aJ
'n
C
p
C
M
�
aJ
d
p
0
O_
L
O
�
C
r0
~
rp
r
E
~
O
O
bq
aJ
Q)
u
�-
v
4—
rp
u
Li-C
�
0
M
L
�
C
r6
Q
Q)
a1
O
a1
LL
p
4-
-O
C
C
ra
c
E
p
E
•
>,
4.1
�
>
v
a)
>�
�!
v
U
V
a,
v,
v
,�
O
+�
.v
L
Q-
a)
V
r°
O
4-1
3
p
4-
O
v
aN'
O
u
O
O
c�
1�
L)
o
c
v,
•�
O
c
O
c
ru
L
°
D
4-
O>
Ul
r6
"
—
W
.—
3
v
L
=
v
' '
r-J
a1
O
O
U
—
a1
c
o
o
E
p
ao
r6
0>�
�
p
c
o_
v
am-+
E
>
—
v
m
Q
,
C
"W
3
bA
c
�
v
L
�
QJ
-°
v
_
u
U
Q-
4-+
Q
�—
`
ao
4-
O
C
c
C
-
aJ
=
r
—
--
bio
r
OO
m
p
O
p
_
ra
m
�
7_
-0
M
y4O
M
N
r0
>
aJ
v
N
ro
b-0
rp
Q
E
'�
�
a1
O
N
LJ
(n
�
O
�°
V
O
U
°�
V
C
°
L
iL
O
-O
-o
_O
C
L-
C
U
4-1N
C
(V
1—
4-1�'
_O
C:O
(U
C
i
N
>
0
—_
W
i
ro
-
L
�
O
�
4.1
a-j
a
ro
>
�
O
ai
-
r6
L
rB
•H
L
_C
N
>1
C
V
�
L
(v
v
L
4-1
C
r•
f—
b-0
OL
�-
N
F—
N
A
O
Q
aJ
O
p
Z
m
—
>
O
�
C
Q
Z
r6
O
N
m
L
a1
'Q
-0
aJ
>
p�
C
E
aJ
aJ
�
-p
�
Ln
i
1
N
p
�
=
ra
E
4-1
L
i
aJ
C
aJ
O
N
0
aJ
bA
0aa)
Q
aJ
v
-->�
a1
O
r0
,
r0
_
L
ru
L
O
ro
N
O
:
°
4�
N
C
a1
N
p
N
i-
C=
u
O
w
a1
O
L
>,
r0
bA
N
L
v
4-1
L
ai
V>'i
>
W
"O
M
M
4�
'�
rB
-0
V
`
N
L
ro
i
M
E
i
aJ
N
v
u
V)
°
C
O
bC0
a1
+--+
a1
QJ
2�
C
a1
Q
a
�+
aJ
U
V)
•C
aJ
C
41
C
L
4,
ro
y—p
L
m
"a
_0
r0
O
N
p
u
L
O
ate,
C°
j
O
r0
C�
�
N
u
-O
4;
O
m
CC
—
O
O
M
u
O>
C
v
v
>�
r6
C
N-0
tA
a)
Q-
1
i
"
M
a)
a)
.�
CL
(u
v
(v
a1
ai
vi
$
°�
al
7
>
4
aJ
O
-c
E
E
O
a1
v
O
-o
E
LE
O
,b0
i
�-
�
�'
a
J
O
c
u
u
vi
4-
4-
,.,
h
(A
0
Ln
Ln
C
a1
-0
bA
a)c
4-'
4-1
'
u
N
�o
uQQ
a1
Q
°�a
v
�°
°
E
C
pL-0
C
Ln
Q
4—
C
E
E
E
a1
'-
r6
p
i
L
C
O
N
rL0
U)
LJ
N
C
ui�
QJ
LL
l0
a)
L
N
aJ
a1
L
,-
E
v
+'
ro
O
+�
°
E
O
L
4.
a
C
U
C
o
m
p
N
u
'L
ao
N
3
H
c
+�
c
V
v,
c�
E
u
c
a)
c
.`-n c
o
v
a�
O°
04-1
ro
O
Q
rn
"�
C
N
aA
'i
41
O0�
O
d
'�
U
.�
u�
°
�
O
m
in
E
�
N
a1
•—
iA
f6
0
U
QJ
U
r6
r6
7
7
N
O
O
N
C
b4
C
Q
3
CO
0
Q�
bA O
bA
c
aJ
�'
❑
O
M
O
M
Q
C
N
O
m
C
L
Ln
aJ
r--
.E
">
p
Q
r6
vi
C
aJ
'J
u
v)
O
C
Ltio
N
N
cp
O
v
C
N
ao
C
+�
_
Q O
to
E
r>6
E
-O
C
O
L
S
in
aJ
-
-
p
V
W
Q
p
C
O
0
O
0
bA
.0
>
OL C
O
a1
O
C
ro
C
Ul
v
_
Q
co
E
�_
I—
V)
'-'
co
O
rp
N
C
LL
Q0
N
NLn
N
N
N
Ln
O
Im
a1
b.0
a
Mo
m
0
O
0
O
O
(� 1
N
N
Q
4
00
m
0
O
O
N
N
d•
N
U
2
00
n
0
0
O
N
N
N
O VI
O �u
u
u m
m �
r
p ._
4-0
Q v
O
X CL
W O
u
C
o
-C
v
^
�
o
p
Lo
-pp
H
O
v
-'>�
v
a
�
+
p
�
pc
pp
ro
c
iaJ
°
N
4
v
O
6
C
u
V
n
r6
E
OQ
a
4-1
p
C
M
r0
rQ
L
L
�
p
0
p
Zj
Q
L
-0
},
o
C
nn
a)
O
al
r6
4-1
U
`-
vim-
aO+
p
a)
�,
aJ
m
C
'bA
r6
Ln
C
0
O
O
N
U
P
O
aJ
L
O
L
4-+
C
C
p
0
1
>
N
L
4-'
cV
LL
p
-0
L
ro
o
L
w
ro
ra
L
V7
7
X
L
aJ
Ut
O
Q
'p
ut
'J
O
C
bA
Vi
N
L
C
aJ
~
0
E
°
+�
C
°
QJ
C
OV
a+
C
v
v-
0
>
>
L
0
U
E
bA
C
On
0
p
C
C
O
Ln
v
"
+-J
>,
(VaJ
4-
(a
a)
Q
a+
QJ
4-
O
aJ
,�-+
aJ
C
C_0
v
aJ
Q
O
Q
C
Q
0
a-•+
M
>
�
m
p
E
m
.O
N
C
.p
~
r6
0
v
>,
.�
a)
C
aJ
aJ
C
Q
C
L
N
N
+�
O
d
C
°
4-
V
�>>+
'"'
m
L
O
O
-p
d
E
0
L
U
Q
i-
VI
7
c
r0
a1
>
C:
'F
a)
L
V)
v
a,
C
LL
V)
v
v
C
C�
Q
Ln
Q
o
C:
O
Q
Ln
V>
>
O_
C
,�„
v
C
c
'
V)
C
Q
D
•N
V
p
4O
m
LL>
m�>
>
Q
v
Q
ro
N-C
bA
O
0
Ln
r�
0
-0
-
a1
r0
L
C
rB
N
N
aJ
'O
4-
0
C
.-
aJ
L
p
p
L
L
aJ
'i
N>>
N
L
L
a)
>,
4-
ra
+'
L
O
V)
L
r6
i
O
i
O
L
C
ram-+
O
E
L
Q
L
m
>
O
t6
Q
u
C>
0
°
'�-
a)
s
N
N
0
p
00
o
ao
t
C
v
Q.
va4.
r6
iI1
>>
Q
3
C
o
E
QJ
o
C
Q
�'
C
o
N
E
o
o
N
a
C
L
N
bA
Vt
O
N
C
rp
.N
L
L
Q-
N
-p
aJ
+-
L
L
N
to
r0
°
E
LL
v
_O
�
v
"p
LL
L
aJ
aJ
-C
p
L'nn
M
�'
�
L
O
C
N
o
Vl
W
v
ai
C
0
�
`�
4-
C
0i
�-+
L
.L
m
U
a,
V
E
aJ
o
�,
(0
L
C
p
V)
bA
v
v
U
o
v
L
V)
v
E
0
0
r0
O
L
C
rp
O
L
v
bA
'p'
4--+
'�'
3
rCo�+
~
v
C
N
to
Q-
0
7
C
aJ
p
�O
O
N
Q)
U
4-+
�
Q
O
to
p
L
v
O
-0
aJ
o
r�
L
Vt
C
-C
--
p
>
N
Va
-p
'7j
C
�
C
N
^
aJ
O
aJ
4o
O
a1
tC)
O
ro
aJ
�
`�
>
W
+�
C
�'
b.0
°
Q
L
N
Q
C
rp
U
V)
C
a)
V)
rII
u
U
aJ
V
v-
C
�
O
V)
Q
O
O
V
L
aJ
y
Q
v-
V
Vl
m
V)
aJ
O
m
U
r6
E
C
O>
bCO
m
—
r6
Ul
+�
00
CO
C:
Y
rB
C
Q
aJ
0
C:
4-
QJ
p
I-
U
1
(V
L
Q
C
Q
V)
O
aJ
'_
i
rL6
v
N
Q
m
°
w
w
V1
C
0
o
V
aJ
d
cc
a-'
vl
�
Q
�
Q
a,
Q
X-
aJ
N
�,
M
�
E
E
E
rp
v
M
�'
1-+
Q
E
G
f6
.�
Q
O
L
v
E
4-1
�
i
�
n-
U
4-
v
ro
N
c
v
E
Q
L
E
o
Q
C
ro
E
!�
�
m
,n
m
+�
0
4
m
L
p
V
M-0
Vl
m
o
Vi
E
LL
°
Vi
O°N
C
-0
aD
>
V
U
O
aJ
`+-
a)
p
C
O
y J
C
C
a)
C-
p
U
o
O
L
aJ
N
r6
L
+J
ro
m
aJ
E
Q
o
ra
4-
Q
C
al
ro
U
o
bQ
LL
Q�
aJ
4.,
c
a)
u
Ln
—�
a)
_rZy�
-C
+�
p
C
>
v
v
,�
L
o
O
N
r6
i
.0
'm
O
m
a)
O
a)
0
4-
o
M
o
r-
ru
b0
V�
4.1
Ln
ro
C
-0
O
O
E
L
a1
o
f
O�
bi0
o
v"
v
v
O
N
bA
V
C
a-J
t-
-0
b0
p
Ln
Ul
�
N
U
N
M
C
C
aJ
V)
C
-o
E
w
'+-1
vi
al
aJ
='
O
LJ
O
L
C
rL+
4i
o
a)
a)
a)
-0
C
>
C
Q
a1
V
ro
m
O
L
N
a1
0,
J
6
O
T,
E
Q
Q
N
E
CO
p
U
U
0
al
r,>
Q
a1
O
'>
C
.�
v
a
o
v
E
0
�O
a)
C
M
O
�
-C
��7
l7
>
O
a)
h
Q
.0
L
0
r0
�
C
Ln
-C
p
-
C
E
E
�
L
Q
I-
u
m
F-
4-1
4.
I-
m
F-
F-
v�
E
L
F-
m
m
I-
v
-
IQj
aJ
o
C:C
Li-
o
4-1
O
C
p
am-+
N
o
N
wrp
4-1L
.0
o
m
V)o
o
L
Q
mu
�
-0
a)
-0
u-
C
�
O
C
O
a
-C
C
N
w
O
Ul
>,
i
V
M
>,
a)
C
Z-
L
O
aJ v-
aJ
�
4-
v
a1
V)
N
4�
O
O
4-'
4-
0
W
Q
LO
N
ro
v
aJ
Q
O-
E
rp
i
4;
a)
O
Q
a1
Q
N
O
v
O
+�+
L
O
>'
3
N
v
a1
p
L
aJ
i
E
L-
0
m>
3
i
0 0
N
Ln-0
L
-0N
N
O
aJ
V
}
ra
N
U
a1
p
o4-1
C
p
-�
C
L
V
p
C
p
Q
a)
L O
Q-
a)
C:
C
N
+-
-
N
r>Q
Ln
L
0m
.^
C
4—
V
LA
N
a1
L
r6
aJ
>
4.1
4-'�
v
N
N
bA
O
-C
0
C
O
O
0
i
r0
M
Ln
O
IV
I
41
°
�_
0
4
o'
ro
Q
r6 i
C
N
O�
Ut
N
C
O
L.
N
_0
'-
O
ru
E
a)
N E O
Q
w
,
00
%
0
a)
+-'
Q rp
o
L
>
0)
�
O
a)
0>
Fu
Q
N L Vl
>
m
aJ
O
O
—
�-
ra
Q>
Ut
C
bA
.0
C
aJ
I-
v O
Q
Z
rp
O
O aJ al
N Q
E
r6
C
m
L
H
E
O
N
>>
Q}
l7
rB
to
L
—
{-J
00
Ol
O
N
N
M
M
Ln
0
0
a1
bA
M
a
SO
M
0
0
C
0
0
m
N
dam'
N
Q
d'
00
a1
0
0
0
N
N
f\
d'
N
V
2
00
n
O
O
O
fV
N
N
0
a
a
a
w
u
c
r,
ci
a>
�
awW
a
cU
C
s
ce
>
N
Q
Oqj
LL
rO
7
bA
O
-0
4-
�
O
Q
Ou
i-+
i
Q
Q
'�a
N
4 j
.N
Ei
O
a
bq
a)OL
�
pv
p
ao�
aaO(
��
�
>o
O
4.1
Q)
O
N
oro
(3)
.'N
ra
in
i✓
Z.
�
o
�°'
�N
�,
Qro
V
,
ro
m
Wao
O
a)
E
N
�
vQ
O
c
_
c
a
ro
a
o
i�
i�
Ul
Q
-v��sNQ
Ul
,
ro
Z
�ro
-
v
oao
a',
�ro
c
O
m
vOE
nm
M
Eo
o
a4
LL
C
Ln
rao
aQj
u
m
C
O
v
r6
_0
ava
~a
m
-O,v
v
u"
oLO
N
O
Ln
Ln
o
4�
V
CN
N
i
°
E
�
o
vo
�v,o"
'J
vip
O�iL
L
)
p
O
rn
(V4-1
C
a
O
O
V
a
o
c
b o
ro
4-1
L
�
C
3
Q
>,
p_
cb
a
76
v
v,
,
V
i
_aEOccmom
-04
NwELLN
L
c-
L
Ln
V
O
N4-1
Ln
O
LnLn0
Q
a)vp
oOL
_
OQa
O
''
o
U
i
a
QO�
Q
�
4-1>
aO
u
a
>
bq
O
Q
Op
'-
+J
a
},
oOL
>
ni
a
TUNV)
V)O
62
i-
•pN�ji+
C
bO
�O
-C
p
�
V,p
i�
C
a)
ro
V)"
ul
N
o
a
�aQ
c
o
-
-0O
aJ
�,
LU
LO
E
QL
a'
-p
4p1
Z
v)
�
N
D
i
u
N
O
a
ra
v
i
L
•`-^
i✓
N
Q—
a
4.,
�'
o
a
a
ro
3
o
O
QO
V
=
D
E
0
3
O
Q
i�
`o
4.
a
4
M
N
4=
p
U
c�
O
L
o
v
v
3
Q
a
r
O=
akj
o
s
c
U)
o
v
v�
a
O
a
o
'—^
c
--
a
o
n
m
a
Q-
v
�O
°
v,
4=
o
-�
i'vo
o
°
°
EO
oO
_
c
(A
vcF--
�
Fo
U
a
-a
4
Ln
4iv°
12,
4o
o
V
a
c
a
m
a
O
Ln
oo
E
-0
�
u
4-
O-
ovJbA
a
A
C
S
a
ro
a
U
V)
11
)n
a
u
flu
o_
�
i-
O
I-
p
L
xV
v�o
m
ra
Ua
s
4�
,
w
ab
=�v
Q�QaQ
Q)
o
c:c:E
L�
>a-0ai�4-1
a
a
bQi.,
lo
Q_
a
i_.
ia�oaac-
E
0-
o
.
Oa
o
c
o
>
4-10
>1
�
oLn
a)
bocQ�
�cN
E
—>Q
�
a
-o
c
a
ov
>
a
>
a
•o L
-o
a°
E
a
o
T,
-
E
oE�
O
>
-0Oo
ro
>
�b
m
E
.
QQp
-o
v
N
m
i7
3
a
o•
"
•�'
u
'_
`°
o
p
,'
c
p
u
Q
v
CS
m
C)
a
t-0
V
Q
u
o
a
3
o
'C
o
L
ro
c+
p
a
F-
+�
°
v
-Q
E
c
a
a
a
a-
o-
v�
0
o
o
i�
b4
3:
'Q
Q.
C
ro
4'
C
c
o
vi
Q
�;
o
C
�
c
°
a
a
te
v
Q-
a
s
c
O�
n°
L
a
v
4.
=
bo
p
C
'�
v
a>
_c
�,
ra
4-
c
O
bA -C
C:
c
O
Q
a
V
.c
v
N
E
a
B
o
`°
io
4-1
a
bA
�
v
�0
v
n,
°
O
a
s
Q
*4-1
O
u
_0
ro
i
a
o
E
C
+�
-o
,�
s
o
-c
-o
E
v
�-
O
,n
a'
p
Q
o�
Q
E
c
Y
4-1
a
w
a"
"6
�'
a
E"
v-
�,
'o
v,
x�
a�
C
L
a
Q
v,
}�
O
v
L
L
u
a
v
o
vt
_�
`ti
Ln
41
'�
`-
>
N
>�>
a
N
o
a
O
>�
ra
C
a
O
-C>
O
E
0
V
p
Q
Q
O
oai
O
O
F-
L
.�
LL
a.
ro
C
4=
C
bA
o
N
LL
U
Q
Ln
41
41
C
p
L
a
Ln
ut
p
"o
a
>,
a
m
�
a
a
o
V)
0
v
L
00
3
^'�
Ln
Np
a
a
o
u
L
L
V)
bA
C
v D
\ V)
V)
(�
4O
c
L1
a
a
U
C
a
v_�
L
u
{-
LL
c�
i--+
C
i--+
a
C
3
>
u
Ln
u
a
a
c
EVOO
�
C:
N-
o>
to
-o
_
Qx
C
O
O
v'
(
aQ
m
bo
C
`
a
0
v
a
�m
;
a>'
a
L.L
V
ce-+
bLA
4-1
i
f
�
m
O_0
L
iJ
o
'1
E'
�
v)
=
~
3
3
N
O
U,
a
U
Q
4--0
a
��>
Q>
o
0
c
''
a>
a
F-
V)
T
i.,
3
Ln
O
a
-0
O
4-+
V
o
"
V)
I
E
m
m
m
04
v
by
C:
v
V
C
E
>,v�
E
v-
d O
C
a1
V
v
O
L-
L' c-C
N
Ln
C
D
Q
m
.Q
E
Ln
V
O
aJ
aJ L
aJ
O
L
aJ
L
U
C
L
c6 C ro
v a'
C
LO
-
u
v
u
A
O
CL
O
C L v
N a
O
u
v
ro
(IJ
:3
V
O
bA
O> LAi
ro
U
3
L
a0 C- v
v
>
a)E
E- a
O o Q-
•-
�
c
o>
Q
ra
a
c
o-
o_
4- —
O a
-
z
Q
ra
c
c
V)� �
O C
-0
aJ ca
M
�
�
L
ro•
C
v
-C
o a)4-1
ao 3 E
`� c
4-1
C
r^
LA
aJ
o
r6
v
4110
-a E
ao
o
E
-a
L
a C o
>
aJ a,
o
c
s
a
c
.
r0 V
L
(AbA
rQ
.4
aJ
s
L
L
~
V
u
o
v
aJ
C
>, 0
-0V,
E
bbo
aJ
`u
L
v
c
ra-0L
v
ro
o
L
L
o
`^
O
QaJ
o-
>
�
V -0b0
-c-"
1—
vO
4O
Vi
Ul
—
ai
N
m
ub
N v aJ
-CZ C
C
L
E
�,
CO
to
E
I
r
CL
p O�
O
O
"-
i
N
H
ro
Lnrp
aJ
>
C)bq
N
C Q
i )
.>
0
�-
�O
QJ
aJ
aJ
L
o
QJ
Q
aJ L
a °%
M
N
y
L
aJ
L
f o
V
C
ro
to
a>
v
Q�
E�
c
4-1
o
u
-o
a
r6
U
O C r-+
Q- 0)�
4-
C O
O
Q
L
Q
,�
m
,�
m
c
ro
C�
G
�
aJ N O
D L
� V)
O 'N
N
4-
rL0
aJ
C
LL
C
>
L
U
U
in
C N C
by >'
a--+
4
41
N
N
;-.
V
N
v
p
o
m
zz m
c
�—
ri
.0
Q
O
aJ
E
rn
aJ
u L =3
rn � bA
4- r6
rp !A
0
v
Q
v
L
O
V
O
in
�_+
c6 aJ
L p
O
>,
4-
N
,�
L
�N+
L
o
�
O
C
o
V
ro
bo
E�
L
a
a
c vo
0v
�
o
In
o
ELn
p
Ln p o
o L 0
L
C
C
•E
0
p
L
L(U
V
aJ
L
bA
N
a
�
v
u
�
CU
C
E vai
u
c
6®
L
0
V)
v
4
o
Q O
O
V)
N
o
aJ
o
_0v
4T
)
o
>
V)
µ.�
O
>�
I --a
a>i
O
a
>,
U
V
a
m
LL
L r0
a1
L C
L
aJ
L
E
C
O
Ul
_
N >
aJ
�
L
O
C
QJ
p
rp
O
Q
O a)C
N -a
O
0
-c->�
Q
>
m
m
N
C
C
+'
aJ
O
E
aJ
L
aJ
L
'�
O
QJ + aJ
L L
L
O
i
rL
L
bA
v��
1
aJ
L
r..+
LL �+
LL
F—
Ln
�
C
L
O
i
ut
_
L
—
bo
4
v C
CL
4
O
L
bbi0
M
aJ
�aJ
'>_
O
O
L
L
>
L
(V
(uL
O
ro
L+
-CaJ
ru
v
rO
v'
C�
L
E
aJ
L
Q
T C
>
E
N
E
4-+
L
>
-
r6
�
v
p
Ln
Ln '
C
-+
O(A
.1aJ
O
NO
a1
L
O
OLO
a1a
l
m
r
O
U
x r-
� r6
E
L
U
N
aJ
�
4-'
� V1
�
Q
aJ
aJ
0
aJ
L1,
)
r6
aJ V
L
C bA ate+
"
P
C
s—
L
O 3
C v$
O
C
O
vOi
to
r0
-a
3
O
4L-
.�
LJ it
p
aJ
—_
by
rB
O
+L-
L
C_ r6
U .0
O
3
C: a)
v,
v
v
a,
C
O
c
C
to
E
FU
OO)
ro
E O
Q
CO
v
�
W>
o
-0
L=>
a
aJ 4-1
m
aJ
L
v,
rO
E
v
.L
v" E
(J
p
'i
'L
>u
O
3�
aJ
M.-
��
�
E
N
a
00
V)
U
m m
m o
.�
rB
V
m-0-
Ln
QO
m
m
m
M
m
O
0
O
O
0
m
N
N
Q
co
m
O
O
O
N
N
N
U
00
r-
O
O
O
N
N
n
N
c
O
0 u
'u
G u
u m
O o
m
O •=
Q
�+ ra
.Q s-
O
CL
W O
L7
ao o
�
o
(Vv
c
C
U
-
E
N
Ln OL
p
C
4.
4-
N
L
X
N
C
-
_v N
C
0-._
4
=
N4-1
O
W
Q
Q
1
C r�
m
4-1
N
O
vi
U V
�
N
O
C 4—
m
QJ
4-1
O O
ru
M 7
tx
C
V)
C
LA
V
Q v
Q
�
L
v
N
a)
C
O
av
(�
0
_
n
L
to
C
L N
v
v
U
v
L
N
O
v
,�
4-
o
Ln C
•N
4J
4=
'p
ram.1
C
rL0
p
C
N
°
n
iJ
4. m
a + N
Ln
4-1
r.r
•
>,
i-+
C:
v
U
N
C
ao
`'
�-+
C
X
>>
Lnv
c v
L
E
v
v,
Ln
ro V)
L
O
a
v
0-
to
T,
v
LA
4-1
-
m
c
v
o
X
m
�
v
'qp OL
C
v
V)
-
°4-1
N
.°
N
C
N
L
N
o-
O
Z
C
u
O
N
v4-1
i
O 3
r6
N
O
3
-�
..
v
u
ao
4
4-1a)
>
E
C:o
s�
a)4-
> 0
o
v
o
°1
n
mL—
4.1
C
rp O
C
C
C
_C
w
rn
0
o
C:a
c
-Q
rn
v
O
Ln
v
�—
L
v
4-1r0
N
4-
:L
� c
N
Q
=
O
0 0
M
C:
N
>
v
.M
0_o
y
v
N
v
>,4-1
v
p
0 C
N
Q
�
in O
4= N
O
E
p
�
p
L
U
a
v m
°
0-C
v
p
��m2
L
r6
>
Nu
C
M
C 1
N �b0
O
U
°
Ln
C
41
V,
C
Uro
N~
4N
N
Ln
f-
N
FA
O
v
0
0-0
N L
m
V)
O
H
r
4
c
LL
+-J
FL
L'
a,
>
O
v
Ln
p
4-
_0
N
N
Ln
4- 4-
N
L
i�
LL
L
(3)
U
s-
O
C
p
i
C
C
o�
rp
C m
O
N
N
L
4J
N
O
v
bA
.�
0
a
L
s
O
N
v�
u
v0
«
N�
Q
LJ
N
LL
v
�+
bA
L
—
-
O
N
Ln
L
L
�-
�
C
rp
4
(D
-1
O
N
C
LI
4-
,D
bA
C
I-
O
C
Ln
M
C
=
+�
41 0
ra
H
O
L
O
X
N O
bA
v-
U
rn
Ln
>
N
C
C
O
Q°
C
�,
N
N
U
O
• N
O>
,b-A
vOi
>,
ro
L
LL
bA
O
Q
C
Ln
N
4"
N
C
C
0
Q
rCp
Ln
>,
O
i
b0
C
>
Q+
C
L
4''
Q
N>
°
C
O
n
0
E
L
i
L
y'
11
L
Q
L
QJa)
Q
L
N
L
L p
N
4i
L•L
ai
ra
N
0
N
0
L
In
`�
4J
L
Ln
Vl
(�f
0
v
OL
E
>�
t
O
t
Q
N
II.
N
Q-r
m
>,
Q
S4�
Q>
O
-0
X
o
'�
O
H
�
Ln
Q
C
o
f-
M
Q
�-
ro
4-
ro
cp
M
O
O
ro
Lu
c
+_
N
00
rcq)
(Y)
m
Iq
Ln
4-
O
m
v
bA
(6
m
O
O
O
O
0
cn
N
N
'►0-
C LA
•u
o u
v m
O o
CO
O •_
Q �
fu
O
X Q.
W O
u
C
0
rn
c
u'
u
o
f
u
m
v
0
>> V)
`°
L
U
bq
N
v
c
-
v
E o
�-
v0-
v
C
�
o
3
v
a
o
ti
�
i
•a
L
°'
�,
v
_
O
1
o
=
a
O
N ru
C
�
L
C�
p
3
v
a
0
+
C
4�-
(AO
N O
to
rn
o
N
a)
O
O
�1
N
L
a)
C
Q)
L
N
W
L
?
O
+-•
v
Q
"
by
ru
4-
O
v .L
bq
C
a1
C
'�
C
V)m
V)O
O
i
.�
o
a)
Q
`�
o
5�
°
a
�
,>,
_
v
4
0
0
Ln
eao
-�
m
O -00�
V
aJ
V
>
!ncu
a)
L
-�
L
Ln
rn
C
v
Q
rn
O
L1
O
vi
rp
Q
bA
}'
ro
QJ
p
O
aJ
4-1
O
rn
a,
E
v
O
0
3
v
c
QJ
C
ro
C
v
4'
�
c
r�
4-1L
a
E
o
Sao
Q
a�
3
a
N
C
a
rl
E C
M
Q
v
LA
o°
.�^
>O
o
v
u
V)v
N
�
p
v
N
a0,
v
o
Q
O
LL
C
rn
>
>
C
N
4L-+
O
E
C
r--+
C
1
i
aJ
r'C._,
v
QJ
N
°-
rC)
'N
41
a)
0
v
-a
U)cu
u
rn
a
ra
E
a,
a�
aJ
`�
�'
L
c
a)
E
O
v
a)
p
rn
L
�
�
v
L
u
o
_
>
4-1
a,
L
a,
�
o
�
Q
ao
E
a-'
E
C
V)
4—
L
0
''
E
v
`°
v
.
C
E
Ln
eo
ai
n
L
rn
m C'
�,
w
o
O
v
r6
v
Q
u
v N
'in
CL
4.,
a
O
a)
p
E
CO
p
C
u
u
u
a4
V>
v
o
�,
�O
M
rn
Ln
ro
v
>,
c
i/i
v
a
},
�
v
v
�
� p
-0
�
-0
Q
(A
�
a
rn
rn
0
4-1
0
rn
C4
a,
E
�
C
:
ro
O"
O
L
v
W
-0
N
p
p
CI-
Ln
L-
M q
E
c
`�
r�
m
o
v
3®
N
0
Q'
V
Q
OV
41
0
-
m
m
JO
N
a)
O
a
�1
Q
Q v
w
d
.L
.Z,
u
�
aJ
�
C�
V)
N
U
c
M�
M
c
v
v
a
0
rn
L
O
u=
c
.�
LL
o
`o
o
�
Q
m
in
aJ
p
�
N
�
0
rn
Q
4-1
�
O 6
>
O
5
aJ
�
"-
�
v
J
C
-C
)
Ov
O
4-1
aJ
>0
tn
-0
O
(U
C
o_0
o
L
�
O
a)
C
aC
QJ
L
E
o
N
O
E
0
0
p
I—
E
z
m CL
u
�-
t-
n-
°
r-
z
m
v
C aJ
v
v
i+ Ln
O
N
v
Q
Q
r_
O
rn
p
U
a
a)
O
C
1
Ll
—
O
C C
m
L
�_
0
aJ
2
_'
.rn
C rn
rn
C
rn
3
L
C
a1
V
O
C
V)
O
L
O
Ql
GA
.0 C
Q)
C
O
aJ
•-
O
QJ
E v
v
�o
'-
°,�'
•�
C
r�
a,
ao
L
o
O
'�,
4'
�,
L
u
O
L
u
�
>
c
N
v
V
>
>,
O
O O
rn
O
E
QJ
v
L
v Y
O
C
rn
.v
O
U Q O
O
C
to
u
aJ
O
v
u
a)
C
E
CO
i+
Q
Q
.,
LO
�..' >
V
C
O aJ O
V
Ln
p
O
�J
rp
N
C N
bCO
E
E
aJ
C
L
4-1 CDt�N
_
Ln
0
E
ro
:
O O N
Q)
j
L
rp
L
lN/1
M O m
QJ
b-0 M
.-
w
a J
(
Q
r>>+
C
r>+
C
r6
+
O
4—
O
O
:
L
QJ
_Q
C
�
>�
C
C
ra U>
O
4L
�,>
O
O v O
O
E
N a)
�'
>
Ln
O
0
E
aJ
,O C U
a
Q
O
0
p
V)
C
-
y
O
p u
u
> a
C4-1
N
m
Ln
Q0
d
d
d
IZh
Zt
m
O
O
O
O
O
rYi
N
N
Q
�t
0o
O
O
O
N
N
n
d'
N
V
00
n
Q0
O
O
O
N
N
n
N
v Z
v z
Qu
v i
L V)
v a
a Ln
L a
v a
c u
a a
v
i
U
V)
v
a
a
a,
c
0
a
i
0
4-
V)
v
Ln
4-
0
Ln
N
bA
rp
a
EXHIBIT B
Page 1 0717
THORNBURGH RESORT
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN
ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP)
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
PROFFss
5 �G t i0
82917
Renews: 1/1/2025 Renews: 5/1/2023
Prepared for:
Central Land and Cattle Company, LLC
67525 SW Cline Falls Hwy
Redmond, Oregon 97756
Prepared by:
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC
21145 Scottsdale Drive
Bend, Oregon 97701
August 16, 2022
As reorganized on
January 31, 2023
Revised April 4, 2023
Project: Thornburgh Resort
EXHIBIT B
Page 2 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 2
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
Introduction
This report was prepared by Jim Newton, PE, RG, CWRE, Principal of Cascade Geoengineering
("CGE") on behalf of Central Land and Cattle Company, LLC, owner, and developer of the
Thornburgh Resort ("Thornburgh") as an Addendum to the Thornburgh Resort and Wildlife
Mitigation Plan regarding potential impacts on fisheries and aquatic habitat and the specific
measures to mitigate for any negative impacts. It incorporates elements of and replaces the
"Addendum Relating to Potential Impacts of Ground Water Withdrawals on Fish Habitat" dated
April 21, 2008 (the "FWMP") developed by Newton Consultants, Inc. ("NCI") and supplements
thereto.
The mitigation requirements and enforcement measures are set out in Section II, below. The
following section discusses the results of the mitigation measures. The remainder of the
document provides background information and scientific analysis based of thermal modeling
and analysis by highly qualified experts and an expert analysis of the effects of pumping and
mitigation on fish and other wildlife that are dependent on the quality or quantity of Deschutes
Basin rivers and streams.
II. Thornburgh Mitigation: DCC 18.113.070(D) - The No Net Loss/Degradation
Standard ("No Net Loss").
The proposed mitigation measures are designed to ensure No Net Loss of habitat quantity_ or
quality and net benefits to the resource and are comprised of four categories including:
A) Reduce water use and thus reduce impacts on the aquatic habitat (Item 1 below):
1. limit groundwater pumping to a maximum of 1,460 AF annually, which is more
than a 30% reduction in originally approved water usage.
B) Comply with the No Net Loss standard of DCC 18.113.070 (D) (Items 2-5 below):
2. Use 1,211 AF of existing water rights described herein to authorize pumping of
groundwater from wells on the Thornburgh property by transfer, cancellation or
other permanent mitigation (e.g., mitigation credits).
3. Comply with requirements for Water Right Permits, Certificates, or Transfers of
water rights described herein, or others hereinafter acquired. Provide mitigation
when needed in advance of pumping as required by OWRD mitigation rules.
4. For additional supply or mitigation over the water rights specifically identified in
this plan, use mitigation credits, COID mitigation, BFR surface water, BFR ground
water, or any other water source in the Deschutes General Zone of Impact that will
discharge water into (or leave it in) the Deschutes or Crooked Rivers or their
tributaries, to supply or mitigate for any unmet needs the resort will have. The
amount of water needed is the 1,460 AF of total pumping less the amount of water
transferred, cancelled, or converted to mitigation credits, and:
5. Thornburgh has provided 1.51 cfs of water in a quantity of no less than 106 AF of
mitigation in Whychus Creek from the TSID diversion downstream by funding the
completed TSID piping project called for by the 2008 FWMP that completely
mitigates all impacts to Whychus Creek. Nothing more is required here.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengineering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 3 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN • ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 3
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
C) Provide advance or excess mitigation which is not required to meet DCC
18.113.070(D)(Items 6-7 below).
6. Let unused water rights remain in the groundwater or stream to increase flows
and reduce temperatures of the streams in advance of creating impacts except as
provided to others for drought relief at Thornburgh's sole discretion.
7. Thin thousands of acres of Juniper forests onsite and on BLM Lands.
D) Compliance and Reporting measures.
8. Detail what constitutes compliance with this FWMP and what reporting actions
are required and who will be entitled to receive them.
Section A:
1. Limit Pumping To 1,460 AF Annually:
Groundwater pumping for the resort does not exceed a maximum combined volume of
1,460 AF. This is more than a 30% reduction in the amount of water Thornburgh is
currently approved to use. This will dramatically reduce the level of potential impacts,
creating less demand and strain on the region's water resources.
Section 8:
2. Use OWRD Water Rights Certificates, Permits & Transfers for Pumping or
Mitigation:
For the purposes of this FWMP ("2022 FWMP") and compliance with DCC
18.113.070(D), it is assumed the certificated water rights in #a-d below will be
transferred to and used at the Thornburgh property. Certificate 89259 (#e, below) is
being cancelled in -lieu of mitigation for any Thornburgh groundwater permit granted by
OWRD. The Temporary Credit from Deschutes River Conservancy (f) have been leased
since 2013 and may continue until such time that Thornburgh does not require them,
and the Three Sisters Mitigation water (g) has been transferred instream in Whychus
Creek.
None of these water rights require additional OWRD mitigation under OWRD's
mitigation program. Thornburgh presently owns items a-e which are existing water
rights. Rights a-d are being transferred from their original point of appropriation (POA),
which would be a groundwater well, or point of diversion (POD), which would be a
diversion from surface water, to wells at the Thornburgh property, while e is being
cancelled in lieu of mitigation consistent with the Deschutes Basin Groundwater
Mitigation rules. Transferring a certificated water right does not require OWRD
mitigation, as it eliminates the use of this transferred water right in its former location
and allows it to be used, instead, on the Resort's property. Cancelling a right is done as
mitigation and results in placing water back in the system by cancelling the legal right to
use the water at the original point of appropriation.
While OWRD requires no mitigation for transfers, as they only change the point of
appropriation ("POA"), or point of diversion ("POD"), transfers can change the point of
impact where the withdrawals will be felt in the stream from one location to the other.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.cascadegeoengineering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 4 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDEND!!M #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 4
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
The change from where the stream was impacted under the original POA to the points
of impact from the Thornburgh wells is the only element that could affect the No Net
Loss standard and compliance with DCC 18.113.070(D). As such, CGE assessed whether
changes in the POA would change the location where impacts are felt in the stream, and
if so, how and to what degree that change could affect the no net loss standard and
compliance with DCC 18.113.070(D).
a. Surface Water Certificate 95746 (4/30/1902) and Transfer application T-13857
(LeBeau) —Thornburgh owns this certificate authorizing the use of 4 acre-feet per
acre of irrigated land of surface water from the Little Deschutes River, a tributary of
the Deschutes River, to irrigate 50 acres of land, for a total authorized use of 200 AF
of water. An application for a permanent transfer, T-13857, has requested the POD
of this right currently at River Mile 56 on the Little Deschutes arm of the Deschutes
River to be transferred to a POA on wells located at the Thornburgh Resort, located
generally west of RM 143, roughly 10S1 river miles from the point on the Deschutes
River closest to the Thornburgh Resort. These proposed changes to the certificated
water right do not require OWRD mitigation. Pumping has ceased and this water is
currently in the river to flow from its point of diversion all the way to Lake Billy
Chinook, about 137.7 river miles2. See Map 2. The added flow will provide thermal
benefits that cool the Little Deschutes arm of the Deschutes River and the
Deschutes River throughout those reaches.
Compliance with this is certificate occurs as described in Section D Compliance, 1(b)
below dealing with surface water.
b. Surface Water Certificates 96192 and 96190 (4/13/1967) and Transfer T-12651 to
Groundwater POA — Big Falls Ranch ("BFR") (Deep Canyon Creek Groundwater
POA). Applicant currently owns this certificated water that presently authorizes the
use of 4 acre-feet of surface water per acre of irrigated lands from Deep Canyon
Creek onto of 153.7 acres of land, for a total volume of 614.8 AF of water. This
certificated water requires no OWRD mitigation. The POAs of this water are wells
located at Big Falls Ranch. Pumping was stopped on 90 acres of this water in
September 2021 and the water was assigned to Thornburgh on September 23, 2021.
Pumping was stopped on the remaining 63.7 acres in 2022 and a deed conveying
this water to Pinnacle Utilities, LLC, was executed on November 30, 2022. (See
Exhibit A.) An application has been filed to transfer all 153.7 acres of water to wells
at the Thornburgh Resort. Compliance with the FWMP has been achieved.
All 153.7 acres of this water is in the ground at Big Falls Ranch to increase flows of
11 degree C groundwater into the stream reaches affected by the BFR wells that are
also impacted by Thornburgh Pumping. This is increased flow of cool groundwater
1 The Little Deschutes arm, merges into the Deschutes River at RM 192.5 on the Deschutes River. LeBeau POD is at
RM 56 on the Little Deschutes arm, which is roughly at the equivalent of Deschutes RM 246.5. The Thornburgh POA is
west of Deschutes RM 143. Round Butte Dam is roughly 137.7 miles from the LeBeau POD.
z In 2021 Thornburgh this water placed this water instream (lease) to benefit fisheries habitat. In 2022 it was
temporarily transferred to North Unit Irrigation District to provide drought relief to farmers.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengineering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 5 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGA77ON PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 5
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
provides thermal benefits cooling the rivers and creeks. While our analysis does not
rely on the flows provided by Deep Canyon Creek to achieve compliance with the No
Net Loss standard, changing the mitigation source from 13-degree surface water
flows in the creek (2008) to 11 degrees C groundwater flows (2022 FWMP) into
areas waterways is clearly beneficial. Also not accounted for is the fact that
pumping from Deep Canyon Creek has completely ceased, allowing Deep Canyon
Creek to flow to the Deschutes River.
In the alternative, if not approved for transfer, this water right could be cancelled in
lieu of mitigation for any groundwater permit or Limited License application to serve
the Resort. Cancelling a groundwater certificate leaves the water in the aquifer so it
can return to streams and rivers. Lastly, the POA could be returned to a POD in
Deep Canyon Creek from where it could be transferred to an instream right with
mitigation credits issued groundwater or limited license applications. Also, if this
proposed transfer is not approved, and the transfer of the water below in c. is
approved, Thornburgh will replace this water with more of the BFR groundwater
rights that are not Deep Canyon Creek rights. Similarly, if the transfer in c. below is
not approved, but this transfer is approved, Thornburgh may replace the water in c.
with this water in (b). As both are being pumped from the same ground wells, there
is no effect which certificate is used to appropriate the water. This water can also
be cancelled in lieu of mitigation, or it can be transferred to instream use for
mitigation of permit G-17036, or the alternate permit. Neither action impacts the
efficacy of this plan.
Compliance with this FWMP regarding these certificates appropriated from the
ground is completed as described in Section D: Compliance, 1(a).
c) Ground Water Certificate 87558 (BFR) — Applicant currently owns 18.9 AF of this
certificate authorizing the appropriation of groundwater from wells located at Big
Falls Ranch to irrigate 6.3 acres. A quantity deed conveying this water to Pinnacle
Utilities, LLC, was executed on November 30, 2022. An application for transfer has
been filed to transfer all 18.9 AF to wells at the Thornburgh Resort. Thornburgh has
filed an application to transfer all 18.9 AF to wells at the Thornburgh Resort. This
certificated water requires no OWRD mitigation. Leaving this 11 degree C
groundwater in the ground at Big Falls Ranch has increased flows in the same
manner as the BFR water in (b) above. As noted above it cannot be converted to an
instream right the same way surface water rights can although it could be cancelled
in lieu of mitigation for any GW permit serving the resort as described in (b) above.
Compliance with this FWMP regarding this certificate appropriated from the ground
is completed as described in Section D: Compliance, 1(a).
d) Ground Water Certificate 94948 (1/30/1995), Transfer T-13703 (Tree Farm) —
Applicant currently owns roughly 327.5 AF of water authorizing the appropriation of
0.453 cfs Year -Round for Quasi -Municipal. This certificated water right does not
require mitigation. A temporary transfer T-13703 was approved by OWRD which
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.cascadegeoengincering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 6 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 6
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
changed the POA of this water right from wells located in the Tree Farm subdivision
west of Mt. Washington Drive in Bend to wells on the Thornburgh property. It also
changed the Point of Use (POU) from the Tree Farm subdivision to Thornburgh
wells. A permanent transfer has also been applied for and is in process. Pumping
ceased in 2021 increasing the flow of cold 11 degrees C groundwater into the
streams. The Final Order approving this transfer was issued on December 7, 2021.
At present it can be used per the transfer order, or in the alternative it could be
cancelled in lieu of mitigation for any groundwater permit or Limited License serving
the resort.
Compliance with this FWMP regarding this certificate appropriated from the ground
is completed as described in Section D: Compliance, 1(a).
e) Ground Water Certificate 89259 (3/18/1998) — Dutch Pacific — Applicant currently
owns this certificated water right allowing the use of 3 AF of water to irrigate 16.5
acres or 49.5 acre-feet of ground water pumped from a well in Sisters. This is a
certificated water right that doesn't require mitigation. The place of impact from
pumping at this location is in Whychus Creek and Indian Ford Creek that flows into
Whychus Creek near Sisters. Pumping ceased in 2019 allowing all 49.5 AF of water
to remain inground to flow to Indian Ford Creek and into Whychus Creek. It is
presently being cancelled in -lieu of mitigation. This 16.5 acres of irrigation (49.5 AF)
of cool water will provide thermal benefits to the stream that will cool the creek and
mitigate for most all the impacts to Whychus Creek from Thornburgh pumping (see
Table 8 above). Leaving this water in the stream is like leaving the 106 AF (f below)
of Three Sisters Irrigation District (TSID) water (13 degrees C) in the creek in the
same area. The TSID mitigation was shown to cool Whychus Creek from its point of
diversion to the Mouth.
Compliance with this FWMP regarding this certificate appropriated from the ground
is completed as described in Section D: Compliance, 1(a).
f) Temporary Mitigation Credits (DRC) — 6 acre-feet of temporary mitigation credits
from the Deschutes Resource Conservancy have been in place since 2013. For
nearly 10 years these credits have increased flow to the Deschutes River in advance
of pumping groundwater as mitigation for permit G-17036. Excess mitigation has
been accumulating since then, further discussed in Section C page 8 below.
Thornburgh may cancel the use of these temporary credits at some point in the
future, although that is not required by this plan. They are not considered in the
efficacy of this 2022 FWMP in meeting the No Net Loss standard.
Compliance with this FWMP regarding these credits are completed.
g) Three Sisters Irrigation District ("TSID") Mitigation Water: Applicant has already
completed the arrangements leaving 106 acre-feet (1.51 cfs) of Whychus Creek
irrigation water (surface) permanently in Whychus Creek. This is surface water
diverted at the TSID diversion near the town of Sisters. See Map 2, pp., 5. It has
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.cascadegeoengincering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 7 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 7
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF T HORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABI;'AT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
been permanently transferred instream at that point and is providing flow and
thermal benefits of the cool 13 degrees C surface water to Whychus Creek all the
way to the Deschutes River and then downward into Lake Billy Chinook. The TSID
mitigation is 1.51 cfs of flow that is left in the creek for a portion of the irrigation
season. In low flow years that may only be 90 days. In heavy flow years that may
be 150 days or so. Depending on the flow in Whychus Creek, the actual volume of
mitigation water from the rights being purchased by Thornburgh could be as high as
200-300 AF, instead of the 106 AF required to mitigate as determined by Yinger
2008. As noted above, the 106 AF need was determined by Yinger who modeled
stream impacts using 2,355 AF of water at 100% consumptive use whereas
Thornburgh's current plan reduces pumping to 1,460 AF and consumptive use to
882 AF. The TSID water was shown to mitigate for the full impact of 106 AF of
stream reduction at Whychus Creek. As noted above, Thornburgh has completed
the required arrangements and this TSID mitigation is presently in the creek.
Compliance with this FWMP regarding this certificate is completed.
3. Comply w/OWRD Mitigation Rules: Provide Mitigation Before Pumping:
Mitigation required for any groundwater permit that appropriates water from wells
at the Thornburgh property, will be provided prior to pumping water under that
permit, as required by OWRD rules. Mitigation, when or if needed, will be provided
by either cancellation of water rights in lieu of mitigation, or transferring the
existing surface water rights to instream rights. By providing mitigation water from
the conversion or transfer of existing water rights, Thornburgh will be restoring
natural stream or groundwater flows to the system at or above an area of impact
from Thornburgh wells, much of which will occur during the time period when
stream flows are typically the lowest and temperatures are warmest.
4. For Remaining Water Use BFR, COID, or Other Water Benefitting Deschutes or
Crooked Rivers:
The water rights described in Section II-2. above will provide up to 1,217 AF of the
resort's total water needs of 1,460 AF leaving at least 243 AF of additional water
needed. For any additional water needed over and above the 1,217 AF, Thornburgh
will use some combination of: i) BFR surface water (Deep Canyon or Makenzie
Canyon); ii) BFR ground water; iii) COID mitigation water or credits; iv) Temporary
credits such as the 6 AF from Deschutes River Conservancy ("DRC"), or v) other
ground or surface water or credits that discharge water into either the Crooked
River or Deschutes River or its tributaries and meet the requirements of the OWRD
mitigation program.
Analysis by Cascade Geoengineering, LLC shows: i) using additional BFR water with
groundwater points of appropriation will comply with the no net loss standard and
have no impact to fish habitat; and ii) the transfer of other groundwater rights that
discharge cool groundwater into area streams and rivers will provide thermal
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Send, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengincering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 8 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN -ADDENDUM #2 (2022 rWMP) Page 8
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
benefits to the rivers and streams; and iii) other surface water placed instream
above areas of concern will provide thermal mass that will serve to cause cooling
during the critical summertime period when stream temperatures are highest and
flows the lowest.
5. Provide 106 AF of Additional Whychus Creek Mitigation (TSID):
Thornburgh will provide 106 AF of Three Sisters Irrigation District water for
additional mitigation in Whychus Creek. This was required by Condition #39 of the
FMP approval. Thornburgh has provided documentation evidencing the funding
arrangements required, satisfying condition #39. TSID has completed the project
and the water is permanently protected in Whychus Creek. This mitigation was
previously proven to result in thermal and flow benefits from the TSID diversion
above Sisters throughout Whychus Creek. With the extra water from Certificate
89259, flows are further increased, which is expected to lower temperatures further
throughout Whychus Creek and in the Deschutes River onward to Lake Billy
Chinook.
Collectively, the measures in 1.-5. above will demonstrate Thornburgh Resort's continual
compliance with Deschutes County's No Net Loss standard in DCC 18.113.070(D), specifically as
it pertains to impacts to fisheries and aquatic habitat. The measures discussed in 6.-8. below
will provide excess mitigation that provide additional net benefits to the fisheries resources.
Section C:
6. Leave Water Rights Instream or In the Aquifer Until Needed for Resort Uses:
Thornburgh intends to pump water only as needed. When not needed, it will allow
water to flow in the stream, or leave it in the ground, providing advance benefits for
impacts to occur at some point in the future. Advance or excess mitigation
accumulates from providing mitigation prior to pumping but also during the
transient period before impacts are fully realized in the stream. The CGE memo
dated August 12, 2022, discusses the accumulation of excess mitigation. Table 5A of
that memo shows that Thornburgh, between now and 2071, will provide
"mitigation" benefits of 71,771 AF while reducing streamflow by 47,117 AF. This
creates excess "mitigation" benefits of 24,674 AF (or more) or the equivalent of
roughly 17 years of full pumping of 1,460 AF. Of that excess mitigation, more than
17,000 AF, or nearly 12 years of full pumping by the resort is provided from
groundwater.
During periods of severe water shortage, Thornburgh may work with OWRD as to
request usage of excess mitigation water that may be used to benefit farmers in
significantly impacted irrigation districts, including the North Unit Irrigation District
that supports up to 58,000 acres of farmed land in Jefferson County. Thornburgh
will request OWRD concurrence and permission from the County to periodically
allow it to use its excess mitigation water to provide drought relief to farmers
impacted by water shortages resulting from drought, the Habitat Conservation Plan,
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengineering.coni
EXHIBIT B
Page 9 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 ! wAIP) Page 9
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'.S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
or other extraordinary circumstances causing water shortages for farmers. As
discussed above, Thornburgh has applied to temporarily transfer 200 AF of water to
the North Unit Irrigation District. Under this exception, until the water rights are
pumped by Thornburgh or used as mitigation, Thornburgh would like to be allowed
to offer free use of its water to farmers severely impacted. Thornburgh does not
intend this as a business, rather it is envisioned as an act of goodwill and a benefit to
actual farm uses in the area. Further, any water excesses provided by Thornburgh is
purely excess mitigation water that is not needed to mitigate for Thornburgh
pumping. As such it will not have a negative impact on fisheries habitat although it
could have a very positive impact on farmers. This temporary usage by others may
be accomplished by temporary transfers on an annual basis when excess mitigation
may be available.
7. Thin Juniper Forests Onsite and On BLM Lands.
Thornburgh is thinning substantial areas of Juniper forests both on site and on BLM
managed lands. Juniper is a native species that, with an increase in European
settlement in Oregon, has increase substantially throughout Oregon. With this
increased human settlement, and the associated changes to the environment
through agricultural and livestock grazing practices, Juniper is now often seen as
invasive by means of a likely 10-fold increase in prevalence that has been shown to
reduce water capture, retention, and recharge to the area surrounding these
increased stands of Juniper. Studies show a strong correlation between Juniper
removal and increased spring discharges with estimates that may be upwards of 1
acre-foot of increased discharge resulting from the removal 4-5 acres of Juniper
forests. Over the last 100 years there has been large expansion in the acres
covered by Juniper, which may be impacting water levels. Deschutes and Crook
Counties are both looking at Juniper removal as a method to benefit water.
Deschutes County has received Federal funding for Juniper removal and is
promoting residents to utilize the funding to remove Junipers. Crook County is
looking at the construction and operation of a biomass plant to facility the removal
of some of the 600,000 acres of Juniper increases since the 1930's. Over the same
time, Crook County officials report an estimated reduction in water flow of 160,000
AF. Experts, such as Tim DeBoodt, Crook County Natural Resource Policy
Coordinator, report that the reduction of between 4-5 acres of Juniper trees can
save, or return 1 AF of water, ideally in the form of increased ground seepage that
may result in increases in spring flow. Crook County hopes to reduce Juniper
coverage and subsequently increase stream flows and return some of the 160,000
AF that has been lost from Crooker River flows.
Thornburgh, as part of its development and wildlife mitigation plans, will thin up to
5,000 acres of Juniper forests, returning the land to the condition of the historic old
growth forest that was prevalent in the 1930's.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoenginceritig.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 10 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUI0 #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 20
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNRURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
Section D:
Compliance: The purpose of this section is to clarify what constitutes compliance with
this updated 2022 FWMP, whether during the review of Resort land use applications, as
reported as part of annual monitoring, or for any other purpose. As noted above
Thornburgh owns 1,211 AF of water rights to be used for pumping or mitigation and
pumping at the point of diversion or appropriation of the certificate has been
discontinued. For the reasons discussed herein compliance with this FWMP has been
met for rights b-f, and will be met for the TSID water (g) in the manner discussed in this
Section, 1b below. For any additional water rights that are acquired compliance will be
met as described herein.
1. Compliance with this FWMP will occur differently for water appropriated from a
surface water Point of Diversion (POD) versus a groundwater Point of Appropriation
(POA) or for a mitigation credit as follows:
a. POA — Groundwater: For any future rights that maybe acquired, compliance
occurs upon the cessation of pumping of the rights and along with any of the
following: deed evidencing the transfer of ownership, a submittal to OWRD of
any of the following: (i) an assignment of the water right to Thornburgh, (ii) an
application that seeks OWRD approval of a transfer to pump at the Resort
property, or (iii) a cancellation in -lieu of mitigation.
b. POD — Surface Water: Once acquired, Compliance occurs upon the cessation of
pumping at the source and submittal to OWRD, and OWRD issues a final order
(or its equivalent) approving any of the following: (i) an application that
transfers to pump at the Resort property, (ii) an application that transfers the
water to an in -stream lease, (iii) the cancellation in -lieu of mitigation, or (iv) an
application to transfer to obtain mitigation credits, permanent or temporary.
c. Mitigation Credit: In the event that Thornburgh acquires mitigation credits,
compliance occurs when Thornburgh provides proof of ownership or proof of
submittal to OWRD to use the credits as mitigation.
Thornburgh also agrees to the following measures to provide mitigation benefits over
and above the benefits achieved by the mandatory measures described above.
Noncompliance with these measures shall not, however, be grounds for declining
approval of a Resort development permit because these measures are not required to
meet any Resort approval criterion, including the no net loss standard:
2. Thornburgh will discontinue the exempt use of all three exempt wells located on the
Resort property (referred to as the Kern, Bennet and Price wells) prior to the
completion of Phase A-1. Where required for development purposes any of these
wells may be physically abandoned and sealed but that is not required for
compliance with this FWMP.
3 Pinnacle Utilities, LLC an affiliated company is the Resort's water provider.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengineering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 11 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 11
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
3. Discontinue the use of all purchased water rights listed in Section 62 a-e above (Pg.
3-6) until they are used by the Resort as a transferred water right or as mitigation
for pumping groundwater for Resort uses. The following exceptions apply: (1)
purchased rights may be pumped if necessary to avoid forfeiture; and (2) purchased
rights may be transferred for use by farmers, including those in the North Unit
Irrigation District or other party if used for farm use purposes as defined by ORS
215.203 (whether in an exclusive farm use zone or otherwise), if OWRD authorizes a
temporary transfer to help address the needs of farmers. Currently, such transfers
may be allowed by Executive Order of the Governor declaring a State of Drought
Emergency.
4. The Resort has already committed in its FMP to remove and/or thin thousands of
acres of Juniper trees from the Resort property and BLM lands to enhance wildlife
habitat values. The thinning and removal of Juniper trees can have a dramatic
reduction on the consumption of water, potentially saving hundreds of AF of water
per year.
Reporting: In addition to any reporting required by OWRD pertaining to water use or
mitigation, Thornburgh will provide annual reporting (no later than December 31St of
each year) to Deschutes County, with a copy to ODFW's local field office, of the
following information:
1. The status of each of the certificated water rights discussed in Section II-62,
including the status of any transfer or cancellation applications affecting any of
those rights.
2. Copies of any annual reporting filed with OWRD.
3. An accounting of the total amount of water pumped under any of the water rights
discussed in Section II-B (2) between November 1— October 31 of the prior year.
4. An accounting of the total amount of a) groundwater left in ground, b) surface
water left instream (permanent or temporary), or c) water held as mitigation credits
(permanent or temporary) in accordance with this Section D, paragraphs a, b & c.
5. The accounting referred to in #'s 3 and 4 of this section will be maintained both
annually, and on a cumulative basis.
6. An accounting of the amount and certificate # of any water provided to farmers for
drought relief.
7. The amount and source of any OWRD mitigation used to mitigate for the pumping in
#3 of this section.
8. Any change in the status of any of the three exempt wells including whether they
have been abandoned to date.
9. Consistent with the 2008 FWMP, no additional reporting is required during the
review of any land use application related to the Resort.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengineering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 12 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN -.ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 12
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
III. 2022 FWMP Results
Results of Section II -A: Item 1.
Thornburgh, after listening to the concerns of its neighbors as they pertain to water, has taken
dramatic steps to reduce its water footprint. The main point of this 2022 FWMP, is that
Thornburgh is voluntarily reducing it water usage from 2,129 AF annually to 1,460 AF annually, a
reduction of more than 31%. This reduction reduces every impact that Thornburgh's water
usage could create and is the driving principle behind this amended 2022 FWMP.
Results of Section II-B: Items 2-5.
Implementation of the elements of this FWMP described in 2.-5. above and the related OWRD
requirements as described herein are expected to result in replacement flow, or mitigation of
more than the resorts consumptive use of 882 AF per year at full build -out and to fully mitigate
for all impacts to the fisheries resource in accordance with the No Net Loss standard of DCC
18.113.070 (D). At least 1,323 AF (1,211 owned, 6 AF leased and at least 106 AF transferred
instream) of this replacement or mitigation water is already owned or leased by Thornburgh,
who has ceased pumping all of the water from its original place of appropriation. Where
needed Thornburgh has already filed transfers to change the POAs, the PODS, and the places of
use of the water rights presently owned. 1,123 AF of this water is already providing the FWMP
mitigation called for in this FWMP in advance of pumping.
Thornburgh retained experts to complete and exhaustive analysis of the impacts to stream flow,
along with the thermal impacts from Thornburgh's pumping on fisheries habitat and
commissioned over 15 technical reports or memo's detailing that analysis. A summary of results
includes
a. Provide a net increase in the discharge of cold ground water via seeps and springs
stream flow in the Deschutes River from Crane Prairie reservoir downstream to Culver,
including at two spring locations of concern to ODFW above and below the mouth of
Whychus Creek,
b. Provide a net increase in the discharge of cold ground water via seeps and springs in
Whychus Creek from Sisters to the mouth, including at important "ODFW" spring
locations at Alder Springs and the mouth,
c. Add cold groundwater discharge versus the 2008 FWMP to the Crooked River, including
in important "ODFW" spring areas near Osborne Canyon and Opal Springs,
d. Increase net flows in the Little Deschutes River from south of LaPine into the Deschutes
River,
e. Increase net flows of the Deschutes River from the confluence with the Little Deschutes
onto Lake Billy Chinook,
f. In most cases reduce net stream temperatures in the Deschutes River4,
4 Thornburgh's 2008 mitigation measures estimated an increase in temperature change of 0.00 degrees C
at Lower Bridge, 0.10 degrees C at Steelhead Falls, and 0.1 degrees C below the mouth of Whychus Creek.
The hearing officer approved these increases which is DE(Xs legal threshold for measurable change.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengineering.com
EXH I B IT B
Page 13 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGA77ON PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 ('2022 FWMP) Page .13
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
g. Increase net flows of Whychus Creek from Sisters to the mouth,
h. Reduce net stream temperatures of Whychus Creek as noted in "g" above,
i. Increase habitat quantity in the Little Deschutes River,
J. Increase habitat quantity and improve habitat quality in virtually all areas of Whychus
Creek and the Deschutes River, and:
k. Reduce the thermal impacts in the Crooked River as compared to the 2008 FWMP to
levels immeasurable, including in spring areas noted by ODFW, and not likely to cause a
change in the quality or quantity of fish habitat.
These elements a-k, above are based on steady state conditions, the point in the future
when 100% of the impacts from Thornburgh pumping have been realized in the form of
streamflow reductions which may not occur for decades into the future after Thornburgh's
pumping begins. Measure C below discusses the excess or advance mitigation being
provided to the fisheries resource.
Results of Section C: Items 6-7.
Excess Mitigation: The net results described in Section B above assume steady state conditions,
the point in time when full pumping is occurring and the reductions in groundwater discharge
into the streams are fully realized. As noted above and in the CGE memo, steady state
conditions will not occur for as long as 95 years or more.' Until then, Thornburgh will provide
substantial amounts of excess mitigation, likely resulting in un-required benefits during this
timeframe. Assuming it will only take 50 years for steady state conditions to occur, Cascade has
calculated that Thornburgh will discharge 71,771 AF of water into the system while creating
impacts/withdrawals on the system of 47,117 AF, and excess benefit/discharges of 24,654 AF
additional water over impacts in that transient than required. In sum the benefits provided are
over 52% greater than the impacts created in the first 50 years of this 2022 FWMP, and equal
nearly 17 years of full pumping of 1,460 AF. This situation will be most pronounced (nearly
100% excess) in the early years and gradually narrow as the difference between benefits and
impacts narrows until steady state conditions are attained.
Juniper Thinning: As the resort is developed it will both clear and thin Junipers from the
Thornburgh lands. It will also thin in conjunction with the BLM, approximately 3,400 acres of
Junipers on BLM lands.' The benefits to the watershed from Juniper reductions can be
substantial and there are concerted efforts to reduce human induced Juniper expansion that has
occurred in many areas of the west, including Deschutes and Crook Counties. Many of these
efforts are supported and financed by Federal funding. While it is difficult to quantify the exact
benefit to the watershed in terms of increased stream flows, the reduction in Juniper coverage
has been shown to be positive. When studies show the possibility to save up to 1 AF for every 4-
5 The 2004 USGS model estimated impacts of 100% were reached in year 80 after full pumping is begun.
It will take at least 15 years, and perhaps 20-25 years until Thornburgh is fully occupied and pumping at
those levels.
' Thornburgh will thin roughly 3.5 acres of Junipers for every acre of land it develops on the Thornburgh
site. At the time of the WMP Thornburgh estimated that about 900 acres would be developed.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Send, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.cascadegeoengincering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 14 Of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 14
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
5 acres of Juniper reduction, thinning thousands of acres could provide a significant benefit to
nearby stream flows.
A technical report issued by Resource Specialists, Inc. dated January 31, 2023 estimated
Thornburgh's removal and thinning of Juniper trees could save as much as 304 AF of water
annually from when thinning occurred. See Exhibit B.
Comparison of Thornburgh's 2008 FWMP vs. the 2022 FWMP.
All the OWRD mitigation in the prior FWMP was surface water flows benefitting only Whychus
creek from Sister to the Deschutes River and the Deschutes River between Bend to Lake Billy
Chinook. Of that mitigation water 0% was groundwater (coldest), while 62% (was 13 degrees C)
Deep Canyon Creek water, with the remaining 38% being warmer, (26 degrees C) surface water
from COID that provides little thermal benefits. The average temperature of the 2008
mitigation was 18 degrees C. By contrast, this 2022 FWMP is comprised of roughly 84% cold
groundwater (11 degrees C), and 200 AF of LeBeau surface water (20.4 degrees C) for an
average of 12.5 degrees C'.
The current plan, like the 2008 FWMP, leaves cool water in the stream to mitigate for thermal
impacts from the reductions of groundwater discharge into the river. The current plan,
however, substantially increases the percentage of cool water mitigation from 62% to 84% and
provides benefits into the affected streams, including Whychus and Deschutes included in the
2008 FWMP but also the Little Deschutes River, Indian Ford Creek, and the Crooked River that
received no benefits in the prior FWMP.
In short, the current plan will increase summertime flows in the critical areas while at the same
reducing average stream temperatures. Regardless of where the remaining 243+/- AF (1,460-
1,217) of water rights or mitigation comes from this plan has already mitigated for the full
impacts to seeps and springs.'
IV. Background and Baseline
The Thornburgh Resort (the "Resort" or "Thornburgh") will have no direct impact on natural
surface waters; there are no such resources on the property and the proposed source of water
for the Resort is ground water pumped from wells on the Resort property, to be appropriated
under a series of water rights approved by the Oregon Water Resources Department ("OWRD").
Use of ground water by the Resort is expected to indirectly impact flows in the Deschutes River
because of a determination of hydraulic connection between surface and ground waters in the
Deschutes Basin. This determination was made by OWRD in connection with its evaluation and
approval of Thornburgh's original water right authorizing the appropriation of 2,129 acre-feet of
ground water for the Resort.
1206 AF of surface water including the 6 AF of DRC credits. Both plans have an additional 1.51 cfs (at
least 106 AF) of cool 13 degree C TSID surface water.
8 If all 249 AF of additional water was from a surface water source the resulting % of total mitigation comprised of
groundwater would be 69.2%, still greater than the 0% of groundwater and 61.7% of cool Deep Canyon water in the
2008 FWMP.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengincering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 15 Of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 15
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'.S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT -
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 202.3)
As a result of the determination of hydraulic connection, Thornburgh was required to provide
mitigation to offset projected flow reductions in the "zone of impact" identified by OWRD, in
this case the "General Zone" of impact, consistent with OWRD's Deschutes Basin Groundwater
Mitigation Program.
Separate from this mitigation and, to meet Deschutes County's own No Net Loss standard found
at DCC 18.133.070(D), Thornburgh voluntarily agreed to address both flow and water
temperature concerns, which was to serve as a component of the mitigation measures for the
original FWMP. Those measures are set out in Section V. Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
of the FWMP. These and other measures added to the 2008 FWMP during the review of the
Final Master Plan ("FMP") were determined to fully mitigate for any negative impacts on habitat
and to achieve compliance with DCC 18.113.070(D).9
The core component of the 2008 FWMP was adding cooler water to the river upstream of areas
that were important for fish habitat. Thornburgh identified Deep Canyon Creek as a source of
this cooler water, which had a temperature of approximately 13 degrees C. This water,
however, has historically been pumped directly from the creek for irrigation purposes before it
reached the Deschutes River. Thornburgh committed to purchasing these water rights and
placing them in stream to improve flows and to cool the river.
In 2008, the use of this cool water made up just 62% of the total mitigation promised by the
FWMP, but was found sufficient to fully mitigate for 100% of the thermal impacts to the
Deschutes River (and to Whychus Creek as well according to Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife ("ODFW")) attributable to Thornburgh's pumping. Additional impacts of 1.87 cfs10 to
seeps and springs were identified in the 2008 FWMP, which planned mitigation by leaving 1.97
cfs (equal to 105% of the impacts) of the Deep Canyon water in the river upstream of areas
identified as critical fish habitat. Additionally, this mitigation was determined by the ODFW to
result in a net benefit to fisheries.
Project opponents objected to the 2008 FWMP, claiming that no mitigation was provided to
address a slight reduction in groundwater recharge to Lower Whychus Creek. Although
Thornburgh and ODFW disagreed that mitigation was needed in this location, Thornburgh
volunteered to provide additional mitigation specifically for Whychus Creek by funding a part of
a Three Sisters Irrigation District project. The County's hearing officer accepted this offer. The
Whychus Creek mitigation was opposed by a project opponent but proven to meet the No Net
Loss standard and to provide additional benefits to habitat resources in Whychus Creek. This
mitigation project has been completed.
This is a Deschutes County standard only.
10 The 1.87 cfs of impact was the total amount of impact to all seeps and springs in any location (Deschutes,
Whychus, etc.) from Thornburgh pumping 2,129 AF of groundwater.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Send, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengincering.com
Page 16 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 16
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
V. Resort Water Supply and OWRD Mitigation
A. Resort Water Needs and Supply
Thornburgh's water supply is groundwater from the General Zone of the Deschutes Basin
Regional Aquifer and is pumped from numerous wells located within the Resort boundaries.
This has not changed since the Resort was first approved in 2006. The original plan anticipated
6 groundwater wells would be installed. Presently, there are 8 potential groundwater wells.
However, changes to Resort infrastructure may require additional well locations to be added or
moved. As was noted from David Newton in a memo dated August 24, 2021, (Exhibit C) the
number or specific location of wells within the resort property has no bearing on the mitigation
plan or the efficacy of mitigation to offset pumped groundwater from the Resort's property.
Any well within the resort property will pump from the same regional aquifer to supply
Thornburgh water for a variety of purposes, common among municipal and resort style
communities in Central Oregon. Thornburgh uses to be served include domestic and
commercial uses, golf course, park and landscape irrigation, reservoir/pond maintenance and
fire protection. Collectively, these uses are defined by the OWRD as "quasi -municipal" uses. In
2008, the Resort's water needs at full build out were estimated at 2,129 AF per year, having
consumptive use of 1,356 AF, and a maximum withdrawal rate of 9.28 cfs as shown below. As
defined by OAR 690-505-0605(2), ""Consumptive use" means the Department's determination of
the amount of a ground water appropriation that does not return to surface water flows in the
Deschutes Basin due to transpiration, evaporation or movement to another basin."
1. Original Water Use Full Resort Build -Out
WATER USE
ANNUAL VOLUME
Golf Courses
717 AF
Irrigation
195 AF
Reservoir Maint
246 AF
Other Q/M
971 AF
CONSUMPTIVE USE
645 AF
117 AF
206 AF
388 AF
TOTALS9.28 CFS. 2,129 AF 1,356 AF
Since the approval of the 2008 FWMP, issues regarding the use and conservation of water have
become increasingly important to the region. As a result of this growing regional water
awareness, Thornburgh has taken focused steps to reduce the Resort's water usage by roughly
one third. This reduction of water use will be achieved by Thornburgh foregoing its right to
develop some water intensive amenities and reducing irrigated landscaping for resort facilities
and individual homes. The Resort will also implement the use of improvements in the type and
method of fixtures used in Resort buildings. As a result of this Thornburgh is reducing its total
water needs from 2,129 AF to 1,460 AF as shown in table 2 below.
The source of Thornburgh water remains groundwater from the regional aquifer to be supplied
via groundwater wells located on the Thornburgh property. All the wells Thornburgh will pump
from are within the boundaries of the Resort and are pumping from the same regional aquifer,
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.cascadegeoengincering.com
EXHIBIT- B
Page 17 Of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION FLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FAIVP) Page 17
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August t 6, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April a, 2023)
the Deschutes Formation Aquifer. The location of wells within the resort have no change to the
potential effects of groundwater pumping.
2. Reduced Water Use at Full Resort Build -Out
WATER USE
ANNUAL VOLUME
CONSUMPTIVE USE
Golf Courses
501 AF
451 AF
Irrigation
111 AF
66 AF
Reservoir Maint
51 AF
43 AF
Other Q/M
797 AF
319 AF
TOTALS 1,460 AF 882 AF
3. OWRD Alternates to Transferring Thornburgh's Water Rights.
Thornburgh has numerous applications, permits and other certificated water rights, as listed
below for use as part of the Resort's water plans that may be used for consumptive water or
mitigation water purposes. In addition to transferring certificated water rights to the
Thornburgh property, alternatively, they can be used to mitigate for pumping of groundwater
reported under any groundwater permits, or Limited License. OWRD mitigation must be in the
form of legally protected water for instream use which can be accomplished in different ways
acceptable to OWRD, including: i) transferring existing surface water rights for irrigation use into
protected instream use; and ii) voluntary cancellation of either surface or groundwater permits
in lieu of mitigation. Each method results in the full amount of pumped water allowed under
the certificate to be protected permanently instream. OAR Chapter 690, Division 505 (the
Deschutes Basin Groundwater Mitigation Program). Thornburgh can use a surface water
certificate either way but can only cancel groundwater certificates "in -lieu" to create OWRD
mitigation. Regardless of the methodology for meeting the mitigation obligation, the result is
similar: the authority to pump water in one location ceases and allows water to be pumped
from wells at the Thornburgh property. Mitigation is discussed in detail below.
Using the certificated rights for mitigation by either cancelling the right in -lieu or transferring it
instream provides at least equal benefits to streamflow and temperature as transferring the
water to the Thornburgh property. Either method of providing OWRD mitigation will provide
sufficient benefits to fish habitat such that there is no net loss or degradation of the resource.
4. Groundwater Permits, GW, and LL Applications:
a. Ground Water Permit G-17036 —This permit authorizes up to 9.2 cfs and 2,129
AF for Quasi -Municipal uses including irrigation of golf courses, homes and commercial
areas, and maintenance of reservoirs. Period of use is Year -Round except for the
seasonal limits placed on irrigation use by the permit. The rate and volume are further
limited by the corresponding mitigation provided. The maximum volume for irrigation of
320 acres of golf courses shall not exceed 717 AF annually. The amount of golf course
irrigation specifically under this right is limited to a diversion of 2.24 AF for each acre
irrigated during the irrigation season of each year. The amount of water allowed to be
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengineering.com
EXHIBIT s
Page 18 Of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGA77ON PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 18
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH`.S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON F ISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
used for reservoirs under this permit is 246 AF. The fully developed Mitigation
Obligation for this right is 1,356 AF annually, to be provided within the General Zone of
Impact. Mitigation is to be provided prior to each stage of development under the
permit.
In 2013, Thornburgh posted 3.6 acre-feet of mitigation credits as the initial mitigation
and the permit was issued. Due to unforeseen delays, Thornburgh was required to
apply for an extension of the permit, which was granted in 2018 with OWRD issuing a
Proposed Final Order and Final Order granting approval. Ms. Gould subsequently filed
suit against OWRD at the Oregon Court of Appeals. OWRD withdrew its final order and
sent the approval (as noted in the Proposed Final Order (PFO)) to a contested case
hearing. On July 26, 2022, OWRD issued a superseding proposed final order proposing
denial of the extension, but the permit remains non -cancelled (valid) as of the date of
this 2022 FWMP. Thornburgh has protested this PFO and is seeking a contested case
hearing.
Permit G-17036 is the first permit Thornburgh acquired. Due to litigation opposing the
permit and the lengthy delays involved at OWRD, Thornburgh developed alternatives to
pump groundwater from the Resort's wells with little reliance on this or other OWRD
groundwater and limited license permits, or applications as described below.
b. Ground Water Permit Application G-19139 (pending) — This permit application
was for the use of 9.28 cfs of year-round Quasi -Municipal water having the same
limitations and mitigation requirements as permit G-17036. It was filed at the
suggestion of OWRD staff as a potential replacement to permit G-17036 pending the
contested case by Ms. Gould. The POA of this application is 8 wells located on the
Thornburgh property. The application is pending. If not approved, Thornburgh will file
a petition for judicial review.
C. Limited License Application LL-1879 -- This limited license application was for
the use of 4.5 cfs of year-round water. The application was filed to provide preliminary
use of some of the water permitted by G-17036 pending the resolution of the contested
case on the extension. OWRD denied the application, and Pinnacle has filed a petition
for judicial review in Deschutes County Circuit Court. If the limited license is approved,
this will require mitigation for the life of the limited license, which can be done more
informally than is required for permanent permits or certificates.
d. Limited License Application LL-1917 (pending) — This limited license application
was for the use of 0.453 cfs of year-round water. The amount requested is the same
amount of water as will be transferred under the authority of T-13703. It was filed as an
alternative to the use of the water in T-13703, as a challenge to the transfer is reviewed
by the court system. The application is pending. If approved, this will require mitigation
for the life of the limited license, which can be done more informally than required for
permanent permits or certificates.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengincoring.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 19 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUNI t#2 (2022 FWIUIP) Page 19
RF-LATING TO POTENTIAL IMf'AC FS OF THORN4URGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
The source of water pumped from groundwater wells located at Thornburgh is the regional
aquifer residing under the Resort and throughout much of Central Oregon. The source and
method of supply —or the impacts generated from withdrawal of water —does not change based
upon which permit, or certificate(s) Thornburgh reports its groundwater pumping under (i.e., a
transferred right, permit G-17036, or an alternate permit or certificate). OWRD rules and
regulations govern the withdrawal of water from the aquifer regardless of permit or certificate
number, and the impacts to that aquifer are the same regardless of the legal mechanism for
withdrawal of the resource.
B. OWRD Mitigation Requirements for New Groundwater Permits
Mitigation is required for new ground water permits in the Deschutes Basin under ORS 390.835
and related administrative rules in OAR 690-505-0500 et seq. This does not apply to certificated
water rights that have been fully developed and need no further mitigation. The OWRD
mitigation rules were adopted in response to a comprehensive study of ground water resources
in the Deschutes Basin conducted by the United States Geological Survey ("USGS") and OWRD.
(Ground Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon," USGS Water Resources
Investigation Report 00-4162, 2001.) The study demonstrates hydraulic connection between the
regional groundwater aquifer and surface water within the Deschutes Ground Water Study Area
as shown on Figure 1.
Under OWRD rules, all new ground water uses within the USGS study area are presumed to be
in hvdraulic connection with the Deschutes River system. The rules require mitigation to offset
the impact of ground water pumping on surface water flows. In reviewing applications for new
ground water rights, OWRD determines the total quantity of water to be diverted from
groundwater and the amount of "consumptive use" associated with the proposed new use. The
amount of mitigation required — or "mitigation obligation" — is equal to the annual amount of
consumptive use.
In addition to specifying the quantity of mitigation water required to offset consumptive use,
OWRD identifies the "zone of impact" or location within the surface water system in which the
impact of a proposed ground water use is expected to occur. Mitigation for any new
groundwater permit used by Thornburgh is required in the "General Zone of Impact" which
allows mitigation water to be obtained from any source in the Deschutes Basin above the
Madras gage, located below Lake Billy Chinook. The broad geographic scope of the General
Zone reflects findings in the USGS Study that most ground water within the basin flows toward
the confluence area of the Crooked and Deschutes Rivers and discharges into the river and
tributaries in an area just above Lake Billy Chinook.
Initially, OWRD determined the consumptive use, and mitigation obligation of permit G-17036
to be 851.6 AF (40%, of 2,129 AF). Water Watch protested that determination and Thornburgh
voluntarily agreed to increase the consumptive use of individual elements of the permit which
raised the overall mitigation requirement to 1,356 AF. The application for the replacement
permit, permit application G-19139 uses the same consumptive use rates applied by OWRD
because of the settlement. Under OWRD rules, mitigation for new groundwater permits must
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoenginecring.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 20 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN -ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 20
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORhIEURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON 'FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
be provided in advance for the full amount of water to be pumped under the new permit for
each phase of development.
C. Thornburgh OWRD Mitigation Plan
Applicants proposing municipal or quasi -municipal water use have the option of providing
mitigation in incremental units tied to specified phases of development; however, the mitigation
obligation for each phase of development must be provided in full before water use may begin
for that phase. Thornburgh submitted several versions of its "Incremental Mitigation Plan"
("IMP") to OWRD as allowed by OWRD rules. Changes to the IMP may occur in the future
without need for amending this plan. The IMP describes the proposed timing for meeting the
mitigation obligation for Permit G-17036, developing the 2,129 AF of water uses and mitigation
over several phases extending out to 2035.
Because of extensive and protracted litigation and challenges to land use and water permit and
transfer applications and the delays in processing the contested case on the extension of the
permit, Thornburgh developed extensive additional water resources as noted in Section B
above, that can be used to comply with the No Net Loss standard. Thornburgh completed
funding for the TSID mitigation that has been determined to fully mitigate for groundwater
reductions projected to occur to Whychus Creek based on the water use studied by Mark Yinger
that overstated the water use of the Resort. This mitigation has already been provided by TSID
and is described in B.6. above.
At this point it is unclear how much water will be pumped from G-17036 or any alternate "NEW"
groundwater or limited license permit." What is clear, however, is that the Resort has agreed
to reduce its water use from 2,129 AF with a consumptive use of 1,356 AF to 1,460 AF with a
consumptive use of approximately 88212 AF. More importantly, this FWMP has accounted for
the maximum amount of pumping that could occur of 1,460 AF and is providing mitigation that
meets or exceeds the no net loss standard. Thornburgh will be required to provide mitigation for
this amount of water when due, which is before pumping consumptive water for an approved
resort use. Thornburgh's maximum water use is capped to 1,460 AF, which is less than 1/100th of
1% of all current water use (approximately 750,000 AF) in the Deschutes Basin.
The certificated, fully mitigated water rights above, except for the Dutch Pacific water rights,
have been or are being transferred to the Thornburgh wells. The transfers will change the place
of appropriation and use. The first of these, Transfer T-13703, was approved transferring 327.5
AF of quasi -municipal water from a well in west Bend to the Thornburgh wells. The total
amount of the planned transfers, including T-13703, if approved, is 1,161 AF. In the alternative
the 1,161 AF of certificated water rights could be cancelled (both the groundwater and surface
water rights) or transferred instream (just the surface water rights) for mitigation credits. All
I I It is unnecessary to determine this at this time as the source of water trust remain the same, the
Deschutes Regional aquifer. DCC 18.113.070(K). However, the mitigation for impacts to habitat based
upon withdrawal from that source are the subject of this document.
12 Applying OWRD standard practice of 40% to QM permits would result in consumptive use of 584 AF. This plan
provides mitigation far more than that amount.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.cascadegeoengineering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 21 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 21
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
this water would comply with the OWRD mitigation rules if used in that manner.13 Certificate
89259 (2. E. above) for 49.5 AF is being cancelled in lieu of mitigation. When all the transfers or
cancellations are done, Thornburgh will need to obtain a relatively small amount of additional
water rights to transfer to its property or to use as mitigation. Because of the efficacy of the
present plans, most critically is the fact that the 1,217 AF14 already mitigates for 119% (w/out
the TSID or 198% with it) of the impacts to springs and seeps15, and that the source of remaining
water coming from within the General Zone of Impact will not create an adverse impact on the
fisheries habitat.
Of the certificated water rights described above, Thornburgh owns 1,211 AF 16 that at the time of
this report it is not pumping. 200 AF of that is surface water that is not being pumped from the
river south of LaPine while 1,011 AF remains in the aquifer to flow to the streams, including the
Deschutes River, Whychus Creek, and the Crooked River to increase flows and provide thermal
benefits, long before the resort creates any impacts on the stream. This "advance" or "excess
mitigation" accumulates for years until the impacts are fully felt in the stream. As is discussed in
more detail below this excess mitigation accumulates to a substantial amount.17
D. Groundwater Withdrawals and Quality Mitigation
In other resort approvals, OWRD mitigation only18 was accepted as providing the entire
mitigation needed to meet this standard for fish habitat. In the case of Thornburgh Resort, this
standard has been redefined to require "water quality" mitigation. This was required despite
the fart that all groundwater numoine in the Deschutes Basin affects Eroundwater discharEes
which impact stream flows. OWRD mitigation, by design, increases streamflow by either
increasing groundwater discharge into the stream (groundwater mitigation) or by leaving water
in the stream (surface water mitigation) which typically has the benefit of reducing river and
creek temperatures.
Increasing streamflow is the main purpose of the OWRD mitigation program. It is also a primary
purpose of many of the basin's environmental actions and restoration programs. NCI noted this
in the 2015-2017 remand of the FMP relating to TSID mitigation for Whychus Creek. Flow
volumes in the upper Deschutes River are an important component of the current Habitat
Conservation Plan for the Oregon Spotted Frog. Flow volume guarantees set to protect the frog
have created substantial impacts on the operation of the basin's irrigation districts and a
tremendous burden on some of farmers within the basin, including North Unit Irrigation District.
13 As the basic premise of the mitigation program was to halt expansion of water use in the Deschutes basin, it cannot
allow for expansion of use and must instead be permanently instream.
14 Including the DRC credit.
15 This is regardless of how the water is used. The analysis of the ratio of cool water mitigation is provided below.
16 The 937 AF currently left instream presently does not include the 106 AF of TSID water in Whychus Creek currently
flowing from the TSID diversion to the mouth of the creek and into the Deschutes River.
17 Thornburgh may allow farmers affected by the Habitat Conservation Plan and/or drought conditions to use some
portion of water it doesn't currently need to authorize pumping on a temporary basis. When providing water for
farm drought relief, that portion of Thornburgh's water will not be instream.
11 Meaning standard mitigation credits issued in conjunction with the Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation
program.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.cascadegeoengineering.coni
EXHIBIT B
Page 22 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 22
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
Opponents of Thornburgh have typically focused on groundwater as it relates to its ability to
affect streamflow, particularly the thermal conditions or "quality" of the remaining flow
resulting from groundwater pumping. More specifically, opponents have focused on the
location of the impacts to the area below Lower Bridge on the Deschutes River and lower
Whychus Creek. However, these areas are where discharge of significant amounts of cold
groundwater discharge into the Deschutes River, Crooked River and Whychus Creek,
dramatically lowering stream temperatures and resulting in improved water quality.
In the original FWMP, groundwater withdrawals were mitigated for by providing surface water
in the Deschutes River and its Deep Canyon Creek and Whychus Creek tributaries. In the case of
the Deep Canyon Creek mitigation, surface water mitigation was justified in the 2008 FWMP
because the creek itself is spring fed. While it is true that this water is cool, the surface water is
heated (from approximately 11 degrees to 13 degrees) as it flows down the creek prior to
discharge into the Deschutes River. In 2008, Tetra Tech's Mass Balance Analysis19 reported
minor thermal impacts (temperature increases) may occur in the Deschutes River. With
Thornburgh's 2008 mitigation measures, Tetra Tech's analysis estimated a temperature change
of 0.00 degrees. C at Lower Bridge, 0.10 degrees C at Steelhead Falls, and 0.1 degrees C below
the mouth of Whychus Creek. Even though there was an 0.1 degree C increase in temperature
(impact) in the critical fish habitat at Steelhead Falls and below Whychus Creek, the mitigation
plan was approved as meeting the No Net Loss standard.
In the case of Whychus Creek, project opponents argued that slight groundwater withdrawals
that nr.CllrrPri in bnth the iinnpr and Inver partt of the Creek impacted lower Whvrhus Creek,
Opponents claimed it to be an area of critical fish habitat because it receives substantial cold
groundwater discharges from the regional aquifer. The 2008 hearings officer expressed
concerns about the creek during the peak summertime temperatures. While Thornburgh
disagreed that mitigation was needed for Whychus Creek, it offered a solution to increase flows
with the use of surface water. The solution was to leave 106 AF of cool mountain water in the
creek from a point south of Sisters that would otherwise be pumped by TSID. The use of this
TSID mitigation was challenged by a single project opponent. It was, however, approved
because it was shown to achieve compliance with the No Net Loss standard based on an analysis
of the impact of TSID mitigation water on temperatures in lower Whychus Creek. This
mitigation also provides substantial additional thermal benefits to the middle and upper parts of
the creek that were not even considered to meet the standard due to the limited scope of the
review on remand. The NCI memo from October 2017 shows the maximum thermal impacts to
lower Whychus Creek without mitigation, during the peak summertime temperatures and the
creek at its lowest flow, to be 0.0042 degrees C. This 4/1'0001h, of a degree is far less than what
can be measured using technology available today. With the TSID surface water mitigation, the
temperature was lowered in Whychus Creek (lowered by approximately 0.001 or 1/1,000t" of a
degree, again in an amount too small to be measured )20. Three Sisters Irrigation District has
19 Tetra Tech overstated impacts by allocating 100% of the impacts of 1,356 AF consumption into the
Deschutes River which was not accurate. Yinger 2008 report stated lower % impacts, and when corrected
the result is lower thermal impact.
20 Since the amounts cannot be measured, they cannot be verified and are simply theoretical. As such,
whether positive or negative they are considered as no change.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengincering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 23 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 23
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
completed the project, and Thornburgh has fulfilled its agreement to provide this the water
which is now instream.
While Yinger 2008 noted roughly 13% of the flow reduction impacts would be felt in the
Crooked River, neither Yinger nor ODFW voiced concerns about thermal impacts there. This
may be because of the large groundwater discharges in the area and the fact that the
temperatures of the groundwater discharging into the Crooked River at Opal Springs and
Osborne are warmer (between 11.6 and 13.7 degrees C21) than the discharges noted into the
Deschutes or Whychus (around 11 degrees Q. See Exhibit 6, OWRD Spring Temp. Still, to
better understand any thermal impacts to the Crooked River from Thornburgh pumping,
Newton undertook mass balance analysis of the 2008 mitigation plans comparing that to the
current 2022 plans.
In the CGE memo dated August 12, 2022, impacts to the Crooked River were analyzed based on
the Yinger 2008 report using both the 2008 FWMP mitigation and Thornburgh's current plans.
Both scenarios used the OWRD temp data, Yinger 2008 impacts, and recorded flows at Opal
Springs and Osborne. The 2008 FWMP had no Crooked River mitigation. All mitigation was
Deschutes River and Whychus Creek surface water mitigation. The 2008 plan resulted in very
slight temperature increases of between 0.0001 to 0.0017 degrees C. The 2022 plan used the
same inputs but included mitigation that came from the cessation of pumping BFR groundwater,
some of which impacts the Crooked River. As a result, the 2022 plan results in even smaller
temperature increases, ranging from between 0.0000 to 0.0004 degrees C. Although the 2008
FWMP allows more than 4 times the thermal impacts of this 2022 Plan, the thermal impacts
range from between ZERO to 4/10,0001hs of a degree C. None of these amounts can be
measured and as such are considered as no change scientifically. They have been described as
having no impact on fish habitat22. Subsequent analysis was done by Four Peaks and Newton to
detail the impacts on the Crooked River. The resulting thermal impacts are 0.00 degrees C at
both Opal Springs and Osborne Canyon. In both cases, the resulting benefits are too small to
physically measure.
E. Fish Habitat Potentially Affected by Ground Water Use
During the consultation process in 2008, ODFW identified two specific concerns with respect to
potential impacts of ground water pumping on fish habitat: First, the potential for flow
reduction due to hydraulic connection that could impact flows necessary for fish and wildlife
resources in the Deschutes River system; and second, the potential for an increase in water
temperature as a result of flow reductions from ground water pumping. In preparation for this
2022 FWMP Thornburgh discussed the changes with ODFW to understand what areas would
currently be of concern. While the area from Lower Bridge to Lake Billy Chinook on the
Deschutes is still important, other areas were also of concern. This included flow limitations on
the Deschutes River from Bend to Lower Bridge, on Whychus Creek from Camp Polk Road
"As recorded by OWRD staff and noted in Exhibit 6.
22 Tetra Tech in their 2017 report, page 8, cited the EPA 2003 report which noted that temperature changes
less than 0.25 degrees C were of no consequence to fish.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www,caseadegeoengincering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 24 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN •- ADDENDUM ##2 (2022 FWMP) Page 24
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
upstream to Sisters, and in Indian Ford Creek, that empties into Whychus Creek. This plan takes
those areas into account.
In the 2008 process, ODFW identified six species of fish that could potentially be impacted:
Redband Trout, Bull Trout, Brown Trout, Mountain Whitefish, Summer Steelhead and Spring
Chinook. While relevant to consider, more important is the habitat itself. In Gould v. Deschutes
County, 233 Or App 623, 227 P3d 758 (2010) the Oregon Court of Appeals found that the no net
loss standard refers to habitat, stating:
"Thus, the context of DCC 18.113.070(D) strongly suggests that "fish and wildlife
resources" refers not to species of fish and wildlife, but to the habitat that
supports fish and wildlife. In light of that context, we conclude that DCC
18.113.070(D) allows a focus on fish and wildlife habitat to establish that "[ajny
negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be completely mitigated so
that there is no net loss or net degradation of the resource." That standard
may be satisfied by a plan that will completely mitigate any negative impact on
the habitat that supports fish and wildlife, without showing that each individual
species will be maintained or replaced on a one-to-one basis."
In its consultation with Thornburgh regarding these issues, ODFW recognized that the OWRD
groundwater mitigation program was specifically designed to identify and mitigate for the
impacts of flow reduction because of new groundwater pumping in the basin. Although the
O\ntRn rule, and 11Sr1; -,twit/ on whlrh the ndp.,; are hased do not riirArtly address temperature
issues, ODFW also recognized that with the flow replacement required under OWRD rules the
potential impact to temperature because of the Thornburgh project — or any similar individual
project — is expected to be negligible. However, ODFW expressed a concern about the potential
for cumulative impacts from on -going groundwater development in the basin, over time.
Although cumulative impacts may be a concern, Thornburgh does not need to mitigate for the
impacts of others in order to achieve compliance with the No Net Loss/Degradation standard.
That standard is based solely on impacts created by Thornburgh's pumping which were
acknowledged to be negligible in 2008.
In early correspondence on this issue, ODFW identified concerns about potential impacts on
cold water springs and seeps in the Whychus Creek sub -basin because of Thornburgh's
groundwater use. Following consultations with OWRD staff and the Department of
Environmental Quality and their own internal review, ODFW determined the type of habitat
potentially affected by the Resort in Whychus Creek would be classified, for purposes of
commenting on the Resort's FMP application, as Habitat Category 2. This conclusion was based
on ODFW's determination that temperature impacts to stream flow, if present, can be mitigated
with appropriate actions. As used in the ODFW Mitigation Policy, "Habitat Category 2" describes
essential habitat for a fish or wildlife species. Mitigation goals for this category of habitat,
standards that do not apply to the County's review of the FWMP, are no net loss of either
habitat quantity or quality and to provide a net benefit of habitat quantity or quality. OAR 635-
415-0025(2). ODFW reviewed the 2008 FWMP and determined that it would, without placing
TSID mitigation water in Whychus Creek, offer a net benefit for fish habitat. Nonetheless, TSID
mitigation water was required by the County's hearings officer. This led to legal challenges from
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.cascadegeoengineering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 25 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 25
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH'S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HAB11AT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
Annunziata Gould who claimed the mitigation water was "hot water" that would harm fish
habitat in lower Whychus Creek. Ms. Gould also argued on appeal of the FMP and 2008 FWMP,
without success, that temperature impacts (of .1 degree C) to the Deschutes River violated the
no net loss standard.
As a result of the Gould challenges, NCI undertook extensive mass balance analysis in 2015-2017
of the impacts on Whychus Creek without mitigation that showed maximum thermal impacts of
0.004 degrees C in Whychus Creek under the peak summertime temperatures and the lowest
summertime flows. It also provided an analysis of the TSID mitigation. The analysis showed that
keeping water instream in upper Whychus Creek offsets the thermal impact of groundwater
pumping by the resort and slightly reduces the temperature of water in lower Whychus Creek,
more than 15 miles downstream21. The NCI studies resulted in affirmance of the FWMP because
it demonstrated compliance with the no net loss standard.
The principle illustrated by the results of the 2015-2017 studies — that increasing the flow of
rivers and streams upstream by not diverting for irrigation use both increases volume and
lowers temperatures downstream — is also adopted in this 2022 FWMP. From the point that
surface water withdrawals cease and aren't being pumped from surface water and from the
point where previously pumped groundwater no longer being pumped is discharged into rivers
and streams, increasing flows reduce thermal impacts, which in turn lowers stream
temperatures from that point of discharge on downstream.
VII. CONCLUSION
DCC 18.113.070.D requires that any negative impact on fish and wildlife resources be
completely mitigated so that there is no net loss or net degradation of the resource. This
Addendum to the Thornburgh Wildlife Mitigation Plan, referred to as the 2022 FWMP, amends
the 2008 FWMP (as it was updated) and addresses potential impacts to fishery resources
because of ground water pumping and identifies specific mitigation measures. The potential for
loss of habitat due to reduced surface water flows was quantified in connection with the OWRD
review of Thornburgh's application for a water right permit. Under OWRD rules, Thornburgh is
required to fully mitigate for consumptive use associated with Resort development.
Consumptive use represents the amount of water not otherwise returned to the Deschutes
River system after initial appropriation or diversion. The OWRD mitigation program is based on
estimates of impact and modeling, the program is specifically intended to replace stream flows
lost due to groundwater use.
The 2008 FWMP was developed in consultation with ODFW to address two specific areas of
concern regarding the potential for negative impacts: the potential for a loss of habitat due to
reduced surface water flows in the impacted areas, and the potential for loss of habitat due to
increased temperature from reduced stream flow or loss of inflow from springs. As part of the
development of this plan, discussions with ODFW took place to understand the current priorities
to ODFW to protect species and related habitat. While the area of the Deschutes River from
23 The TSID mitigation reduced temperatures slightly throughout Whychus Creek starting from the TSID
diversion where the water was left in stream.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengineering.coni
EXHIBIT B
Page 26 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN -ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 26
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF TI41)RNBURGH`S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
Lower Bridge to Lake Billy Chinook remained important to ODFW, other issues presented
concerns to the agency. ODFW expressed concern with limited flows of the Deschutes River
between Bend and the Lower Bridge area, and of Whychus Creek between Sisters and Camp
Polk Road and in Indian Ford Creek. Also important to ODFW was the distance in the stream the
mitigation change will improve, as longer stream reaches are better.
As described above this 2022 FWMP has numerous sources providing benefits and mitigation,
several that provide benefits over a significant distance, including areas of concern to ODFW.
For example: 1) the LeBeau water increases flow in the Deschutes River for 137.7 miles; 2) The
Tree Farm water is cold groundwater discharges that increase flows in the Deschutes River from
Bend downstream through the stretch of concern to ODFW and onto the lake; 3) The Dutch
Pacific water is benefitting Indian Ford Creek and Whychus Creek around Sisters to the mouth;
4) TSID water adds cool surface water above Sisters to the mouth of Whychus Creek at the
Deschutes River. All of these sources increase flows that add to the thermal mass which in turn
reduces temperatures in their respective stream and river reaches, ultimately providing benefits
down to Lake Billy Chinook.
The potential for an increase in stream temperature resulting in a negative impact to fish and
wildlife resources was also evaluated. Regarding Whychus Creek, the TSID water was shown to
fully mitigate any potential peak temperature impact and lower the stream temperatures in not
only Lower Whychus Creek, but throughout Whychus Creek to the mouth, which includes the
area of concern to ODFW. Increasing the groundwater discharges from the Dutch Pacific water
Will fiirthnr inrrPnrp tha rarliirtinn in tamnPraturP and the thermal henefits hPinL nrovided to
Whychus Creek.
Regarding the Deschutes River, the 2008 FWMP increased flows between Bend and Lake Billy
Chinook by adding warmer surface water in Bend and cooler surface water from Lower Bridge to
Lake Billy Chinook. These additions resulted in temperature change of 0 degrees C above Lower
Bridge down towards Steelhead Falls, and an increase in the temperature of 0.1 degrees C at
Steelhead Falls to below Whychus Creek. Even with those slight increases in temperature
providing cool water mitigation equal to 10S% of the impacts to seeps and springs fully
mitigated for any reduction in groundwater. Increasing the percentage of benefits to seeps and
springs coming from cool water sources (includes groundwater, Deep Canyon Water, TSID
water) to 195% presently from 155% in the 2008 FWMP naturally provides far greater benefits
than previously approved.
In developing recommendations for this plan, it was clear any potential change in stream
temperature attributable to Thornburgh's proposed ground water use under steady state
conditions, whether positive or negative, would be at levels not measurable with available
equipment and technology. Although the changes being discussed will, in almost all cases,
result in an increase in stream flows and a reduction in stream temperatures, they are not
significant enough to result in any quantifiable negative impact to fish habitat at any time.
However, the massive influx of excess flows provided during the transient period will further
increase stream flows and further lower temperatures in all the affected reaches for decades
into the future as the actual impacts to stream flows gradually increase from Thornburgh's
groundwater pumping until steady state conditions are attained.
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengineering.com
EXHIBIT B
Page 27 of 27
FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - ADDENDUM #2 (2022 FWMP) Page 27
RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THORNBURGH`S
REDUCED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS ON FISH HABITAT
August 16, 2022 (As reorganized on January 31, 2023; Revised April 4, 2023)
By committing to fully utilize the water sources as described herein, and to comply with the
conditions of this 2022 FWMP, any potential negative impacts to fish habitat resources because
of the Thornburgh Resort development will be completely mitigated such that there is no net
loss or degradation of habitat quantity or quality. In fact, it will likely provide a slight net benefit
when steady state conditions are achieved many decades from now. During the transient
period, Thornburgh will provide significant additional benefits to the quantity and quality of fish
and aquatic habitat. As such this 2022 FWMP will exceed the no net loss/degradation standard
set by DCC 18.113.070(D).
Cascade Geoengineering, LLC 21145 Scottsdale DR, Bend, Oregon 97701 360-907-4162 www.caseadegeoengineering.com
�wTES C-0G €
2� BOAR® OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: April 17, 2023
SUBJECT: Healthy Schools Program Update
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
N/A; update only.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Healthy Schools program began in FY 2022 when the Board of County Commissioners
approved the budget committee's recommendation to match the contribution from Bend -
La Pine Schools (BLS) and initiate Healthy Schools in that district. The program was
approved as a phased -in approach over three years with staffing increases each year such
that the program will reach 100% implementation byjuly 1, 2024.
The Healthy Schools program brings the expertise of Public Health directly into schools and
the district to meet student and family needs and address gaps that the district and
schools alone cannot. Healthy Schools focuses on topics such as adolescent suicide,
vaping, social media, alcohol and other drug use, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted
infections as well as other emerging risks and infectious diseases that may keep students
away or disconnected with school, which increases the likelihood of negative consequences
in adulthood.
The first analysis on student health outcomes will be conducted in Fall 2025; however,
ongoing program monitoring indicates Healthy Schools implementation is being conducted
in a manner that will create change. For example, 95% of middle and high school Health
teachers are now using effective skills -based Health curricula to address current student
health needs, a 206% increase from 2021.
Public Health and Bend -La Pine Schools staff will provide a program update as of March
2023.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
N/A
ATTENDANCE:
Jessica Jacks, Deschutes County Health Services, Prevention and Health Promotion Program
Manager
Aimee Snyder, Deschutes County Health Services, Healthy Schools Supervisor
Lora Nordquist, Bend -La Pine Schools, Deputy Superintendent
Sean Reinhart, Bend -La Pine Schools, Executive Director Student Services
Dean Richards, Bend -La Pine Schools, Director of Secondary Curriculum, Instruction, and
Systems
W
z
M
z
w
a
Q
� o
w
41E
>
•
x
z
x
6
W
o
A
ai
W
MI
L
VI)
U =
'2175
a).Q
0
- (1)
C)
EEC
(D
sip
(D
90
0 C) C)
Nr N
Vf
L
_IA
a
V
C
E
(n m
0 o
o
o
o
J
y
� V
0
.10
tOwl,%If
T
E a,
Ly
i E
V
■/�
N
a.r
V
4)
ya
IA
a
E
U
W ..!
ME
m
*A
• B
\
4a
•1 •
�A,
�,
I q
W
L
O
w
U
0-'>
V
v
O
—
C6
V I
L
i
>
N
O
u
C:
O
N
-
4-1
O
.0
S
t�i�
>
�6
4-1M
_
v
L
C
N
O
c
>
-a
w
O
v
' '_
to
+�
c6
c6
S—
cu
�
,Q
v
0
>,
u
'>
o
cu
coo
d-
ro
v
a)
v
4-1
bo
O
=
u_
u_
2
-VI
®
.
.
w
•
ru
ro
U
LL
I
OW
E Oil =3 C:
'o E E
<
LA- E-
0
Cl
sM
I
N
0=0
..
.CL
•
■
i
�
.
�
2?
?
«
¥<
C.
~�
».
\:
� �
. .
¥
<� #
0
� y
.
@
.
L.
<.
w
C
•
■
: .
¥
^
—
^
()
^`
■
'
;
eLn
a
¥
�
■
��
ry
4-j
U
rly
.
2\
.
d
`
»
\
+
�
.
¥
d
y<
y
LM
ry
•
¥:
«¥
¥
® V
C6 r
4-J (1) bb ®
e
LA
m >
i
L-
�
®
cn
O
-0 r
•i
..®
IA
4-
®
� U
ro
®
ro
Q
a-�-+
4 J to
N
m
a- J
ui
CU
cN
(A
L
r6
m =
=
� > ®
-?
_
M
� o
�
(31
.
N
.�
U
•
•
•
• •
•
•
Ln
•
•
�
•
U
E
02
•
•
•
0
L
LO
c
V)
LU
r
•
•
so
9� �411 �1-1 8�1
0 C) 0 0
q C� q C�
LO 0 LO ©
t-- Ln C14
'N
I
4D (D
C3 (D
cs
I
2)
Im
W
IE
E V)
u
x
(D
U)
W (D
as
rL
LZI
M
r�
0
d
0
bn
L
N
L
O
4—
L
N
9
N
m
Ln
N
O
N
LL
i
•
i
0
�S�v'( E S C0G
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
3:00 PM, MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2023
Allen Room - Deschutes Services Bldg - 1300 NW Wall St - Bend
(541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org
MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and
can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session.
Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link:
http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To view the meeting via Zoom, see below.
Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda.
Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing
citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734.
When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be
allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means.
Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer.
• To join the meeting from a computer, copy and paste this link: bit.ly/3h3ogdD.
• To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the
passcode 013510.
• If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public
comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *6 to indicate you would like to speak and
*9 to unmute yourself when you are called on.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all
programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities.
If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or
email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org.
CALL TO ORDER
CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the
agenda.
Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments
may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. 3:00 PM Document No. 2023-382, rendering the Board's decision on the Thornburgh
Destination Resort's 2022 Fish & Wildlife Mitigation Plan Modification
Approval
2. 3:10 PM Healthy Schools Program Update
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
3. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations
ADJOURN
April 17, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 2