Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-12 Business Meeting Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 1 of 11 For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2014 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, Laurie Craghead and John Laherty, County Counsel; Paul Blikstad, Community Development; and nine other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 10:05 a.m. __________________________ 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT None was offered. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2014-028, Accepting the Petition and Setting the Date for a Public Hearing on the Annexation of Pine Forest Development, LLC Property into the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 2 of 11 John Laherty gave an overview of this item and the following one, regarding Pine Forest Development’s requests for annexation into the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District and the Four Rivers Vector Control District. Commissioner DeBone asked if this is acceptable to the Districts. Mr. Laherty said they were notified of the requests and they feel it is appropriate to annex the property. UNGER: Move Board signature of the Order. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2014-029, Accepting the Petition and Setting the Date for a Public Hearing on the Annexation of Pine Forest Development, LLC Property into the Four Rivers Vector Control District. UNGER: Move Board signature of the Order. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on a LUBA Remand on the Millican Mining Site Decision. Chair Baney read the opening statement and Paul Blikstad gave an overview of the issue. This is to address remand on a 2010 Board decision from LUBA on a few questions. (A copy of the opening statement is attached for reference.) Regarding ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest, Commissioner DeBone said that there was a donation made to a PAC for his past election campaign, but he does not feel it is a conflict. Commissioners Unger and Baney had no conflicts to disclose. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 3 of 11 Mr. Blikstad said there is a tight timeframe for a decision. Due to the new fee for an appeal not being submitted with the appeal, there is a question about the date. Chair Baney encouraged all to be expedient since this has been going on for a long time. He provided a supplemental burden of proof from the applicant, and a request from the Walkers to keep the hearing open. There were a couple of e-mails from others as well. The County has made three decisions on this issue. LUBA has narrowed down the scope to two issues that are listed on the matrix form. The applicant asked that they include Item #1, although this was already decided by LUBA and does not need to be addressed. This reaffirms th e will of the Board and is not an issue for discussion. Item #2 speaks about agricultural operations on the flat pasture area. This is a large grazing allotment of over 5,000 acres. The previous allotment users felt that Sage Grouse would migrate and negatively impact the grazing area. The Nash’s are no longer the holder of the allotment and the new holder does not feel there is a problem. LUBA decided that the Nash’s opinion was speculative. Staff feels that the ½-mile impact area is sufficient to address any potential conflicts, and is consistent with the County’s ½-mile surface mining impact zone. He referred to an oversized map and an area marked in blue that is an ancient river bed. This has been shown as a flood plain. A conditional use permit would be needed to mine that particular area, and is not a subject of this appeal. Commissioner Unger said this decision would allow for application for mining in the future. There will be a new process in the future to speak to specifics, including site plan review. Mr. Blikstad stated that Item #3 has to do with agricultural impacts within ½- mile of the site, or that there will be mitigation to offset this. Staff does not feel this is a problem, nor does the new grazing allotment operator. Item #4 is in regard to timing of operations. A decision in the record lists twenty conditions of approval, such as weather, wind, coordination with grazing, and blasting. The grazing allotment operator feels this will not impact cattle grazing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 4 of 11 Laurie Craghead said that under case law, the Board cannot rehash i ssues that have already been decided and are not on remand. They could discuss new issues that arise, but it may be hard to keep the lines clear on what is new and what has already been discussed. The Board can simply deliberate on the items remanded. Commissioner Unger asked if new issues arise, what the process is to handle those. Ms. Craghead said it is unclear what Code provision might address this, and whether it was to be part of the conflicts analysis. The paperwork and purpose is not clear. Chair Baney stated that this issue has been ongoing for eight years, and the information in the record should be used and they should keep this holistic. New information can be address in another way in the future. Commissioner Unger wondered what path a person would use to add something new. He agrees to stay tight with this situation at this time. A new application would have to deal with current rules. Chair Baney asked Nick Lelack if they can add this as a discussion point in the future, referring to new Goal 5 resources. Mr. Lelack said that sometimes circumstances change and they can work through the process when that occurs. Sharon Smith, attorney for the applicant, stated the issue of impacts on Sage Grouse habitat has been covered and is not a discussion point today. LUBA is satisfied that this has been adequately addressed. The question is about impacts to the flat pasture, which is used to graze 125 cattle for a month, in over 5,000 acres. Consultant Roger Borine submitted his report, and the holder of the allotment is here to testify. The County’s standard is greater than what is required by OAR’s. This has been sufficient historically, and is appropriate in this case. The Sage Grouse lek is over a mile away, and LUBA felt this was a speculative question in regard to agricultural impacts, but it was not decided at the County level, so needs to be done so now. The ½-mile area is appropriate. Commissioner DeBone asked if all the cattle are on the same land at the same time. Ms. Smith said it varies, and can be spread out over the 5,000 acres for four months, in the summer. There are so few cattle over a very large area, that it can change depending on where the forage is. Ms. Craghead said LUBA thought it was for a specific timeframe, so this needs to be addressed in a decision. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 5 of 11 Commissioner Unger noted that the entire property is being asked to become surface mining, and asked if they have to consider the value of the product. It is a big area and perhaps it is not all viable. Ms. Smith stated this is supposed to be an exceptionally good quality resource. It is not found just anywhere. It is a Goal 5 resource and is protected. The owner will consider the quality and quantity. Ms. Craghead stated they do not look at parts of the property. The entire property is felt to be subject to the good aggregate, and there were no arguments as to where the mining would be appropriate. It is a combination of it being a significant resource, and the entire property is considered. This is not something to be decided now. Ms. Smith said that the juniper shrub letter is not a relevant issue, as there seems to not be a reason to consider it at this time. Steven Roth stated that he is the rancher who now grazes this area. (He brought a map of his ranch and pointed out the relevant points.) He grazes four times the size of the mining area. He will gain water in this situation, resulting from the pits, and water in that area is a valuable asset. The Sage Grouse lek sites do move, but this is a natural occurrence and the BLM is already managing this. Mining will have no impact on his cattle. He is limited anyway as to where he grazes his cattle depending on BLM’s rules. There are two flat pastures, one he uses and one that is partially in the pit area. All land is grazed unless it is fenced off, like the mined sites. The Leslie Ranch agreement has to do a much larger area and the BLM is involved. Commissioner DeBone said that the affected areas can be used only about 1-1/2 months a year for grazing. Mr. Roth stated that they can bring in hay only on privately owned land, too, so it is key to have some private land available to do this. Mr. Roth stated that he has cattle in other areas where military aircraft create a lot of noise, and he does not feel that occasional blasting at the mine site will bother the cattle in any case. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 6 of 11 Paul Dewey submitted a document to the Board. He represents Central Oregon Landwatch, and noted that the lek and Sage Grouse issues have been taken off the table, but he thinks this is still an issue. He feels that this can impact the area used for grazing. He disagrees with the comment that the BLM is giving no opinion on this. The NEPA process and cumulative effects analysis means you decide direct, indirect or future conflicts. A mine on private land could impact grazing in the area. That is the cumulative effect and the BLM is putting the County on notice about this. He also disagrees with the speculative conflict issue, which was decided three years ago. They all know more about the Sage Grouse now and are concerned about a listing as endangered or threatened. He disagrees with whether the Board can rehash certain issues. The Board may not be forced to do this, but case law allows the Board to make a different decision. Parties can’t force this issue, but the Board has discretion to revisit prior decisions. There are several processes going on, with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the BLM and the Governor’s Office involved. The land use system and the Goal 5 process may not show adequate protection of the Sage Grouse. LUBA noted that the only aspect of Goal 5 protection of Sage Grouse is leks, not nesting sites or other habitat. The other weakness is that LUBA allows the Board deference. Th ere are two competing biologist reports, and the Board decided on the applicant’s biologist’s report. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will learn that most habitat is not protected, and the Board is making this decision with no real grounding in biology. This started in 2004, but there is also a consideration of antelope habitat now. He feels this is not rigorous enough when it is based on information from ten years ago. He asked that the record be left open for at least ten days for further testimony. He stated that part of the problem is finding the latest science. He does not know what conditions of approval might work for this land. BLM and Fish & Wildlife have not been asked. The dispute in 2011 was whether this was a lek corridor. Maybe new evidence would show this is the case, but was decided it was not at that time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 7 of 11 Commissioner Unger said the BLM letter is not dated, but has to have been after Mr. Borine’s letter. Mr. Blikstad said that it was sent on November 3, 2014 and received on November 5, 2014. Chair Baney asked about the Fish & Wildlife cumulative effects analysis. Mr. Blikstad replied that it would be their study and it is unknown what they would come up with. The County would have some input. Mr. Craghead said that you can change the decision only on the issues tha t are on remand. The only considering is whether the leks would affect grazing. Whether to expand the Goal 5 resources is a whole different process. The Board cannot change the decision of the first two appeals on the Sage Grouse. Mr. Dewey said there will be a subsequent application, but you cannot look at Goals in the conditional use permit process. This is a weakness in the land use system, so this allows issues to become very outdated. Sharon Smith had no rebuttal since the issues raised by Mr. Dew ey are beyond the scope of this decision. The Board has followed the process and if the BLM had questions, they did not raise them. The NEPA process is not a part of this, either. She has additional information to submit if the Board decides to leave the hearing open. She is agreeable to the October 13 start date for the appeal period. Commissioner Unger suggested they leave the written record open, to be consistent with previous actions. Commissioner DeBone agreed. The Board will deliberate on December 15, and sign the decision on January 7 if it is ready. Ms. Smith said they would extend the timeframe until January 30. The record will close on Monday, November 24 for written documents only on the issues at hand. Ms. Smith requested a rebuttal period until December 1. Mr. Blikstad stated he is not sure what the Walkers plan to submit. Chair Baney said they need to stay with what is before the Board. Ms. Craghead added this can be noted in the decision. __________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 8 of 11 Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Chair Baney asked that the minutes be removed until she has a chance to review them. DEBONE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda except for the minutes. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 6. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-236, an Industrial Lease of Bare Land in the La Pine Industrial Park to Jeffrey Kaufman 7. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-528, an Intergovernmental Agreement with High Desert Education Service District regarding the Healthy Families of the High Desert Program 8. Board Signature Board Signature of Resolution No. 2014-130, Transferring Appropriations within the Public Health and Behavioral Health Funds 9. Board Signature of Resolution No. 2014-131, Transferring Appropriations in the North County Services Building Fund 10. Board Signature of Resolution No. 2014-132, Transferring Appropriations in the Sheriff’s Office and Countywide Law Enforcement District #1 Funds 11. Board Signature of a Letter Reappointing Thomas Schuchardt to the Deschutes County Dog Control Board of Supervisors, through June 30, 2016 12. Board Signature of a Letter Reappointing Bruce Barrett to the Deschutes County Budget Committee, through December 31, 2017 13. Approval of Minutes:  Business Meetings of October 27 and 29, and November 5, 2014  Work Sessions of October 27 and 29, and November 5, 2014 Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 9 of 11 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of a Letter Reappointing Bruce Barrett to the Deschutes County 911 County Service District Budget Committee, through December 31, 2017. UNGER: Move Board signature. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 15. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $91,407.73. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTYWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT DISTRICT (#1) 16. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of a Letter Reappointing Bruce Barrett to the Deschutes County Countywide Law Enforcement District Budget Committee, through December 31, 2017. DEBONE: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 10 of 11 17. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2014-132, Transferring Appropriations in the Sheriff’s Office and Countywide Law Enforcement District #1 Funds. UNGER: Move Board signature. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DISTRICT (#2) 18. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of a Letter Reappointing Bruce Barrett to the Deschutes County Rural Law Enforcement District Budget Committee, through December 31, 2017. DEBONE: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $60.00. UNGER: Move approval, subject to review. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 20. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,414,509.66. Mr. Anderson pointed out that $622,000 was paid out for the jail expansion and the 911 parking lot. The special road districts taxes also paid in advance. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 21. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no other items brought before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m. DATED this I~DaYOf ~ 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tam~ Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, November 12,2014 Page 11 of 11 ----------------------------- • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING :,// ..7 REQUEST TO SPEAK .t1--,,' 1:..Agenda Item of Interest _-_)___________ Date Name Sh ()..ro,. ~rn,f'~ --~~~---------------------- ." Address S'I ~hi m ( J / Phone #s __5------'-L/_I ~_~_1_7_,. 3~/-___ ~_--_~'._._5-----.;8':::..--2-_·_-_.--J-'-/_.5_'....... E-mail address I).}J In Favor NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? D Yes No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest _1f_._'_1)___________ Date ______ Name {J-er6 Yd' f!, 0 f b Address '1/ 60() 1/'7 U Phone #s f 1Jj -lj/O -10 I Z E-mail address tPfh{fP,bAe"t§2 nels (oJ<Ji?, rYe) I I [1:J In Favor D NeutrallUndecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes [LJ No ------------------------------------------ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ___...f_-_l<=----________ Date I I J I~ / It.{.. Address --~~~--~~~~-------------- Phone#s 5tJI-L/~{J-<0 LIS;--~~~==~~=--------------------- E-mail address D In Favor NeutrallUndecided [3 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [J Yes BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest __~S;==------&<..2--=.W--=-_-_________ Date __~_.._ Name ___ --=-A?2_~~~_~_~_~_~_r . -,~~r~--~~. __________________ ~ 0--I }\J'-.l Address ~1Z7V' ~l./;f..;'!J/I-/~/ (). p ,&.,~, ?Yg' mO/ v .LSf) Phone #s ~f')-t,/o -27'G7 E-mail addressYMP/;f~C!~.t/.Ir~r//hr!.CbHL D In Favor 0. NeutrallUndecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes BNo Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of November 12, 2014 Please see directions for completing this document on the next page. DATE: October 31,2014 FROM: Paul Blikstad Department CDD Phone # 6554 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing on applications for a Plan Amendment to add the subject property, adjacent to Highway 20 and Spencer Wells Road near Millican to the County's Goal 5 surface mining inventory of mineral and aggregate resources; and a Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-HR) to Surface Mining (SM), for approximately 365 acres. File numbers PA-04-8/ZC-04-6 PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The applications have been approved locally three different times through written decisions by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), in December 2006 (Document 2006-609), October 2008 (Document No. 2008-536), and September 2010 (Document No.20 1 0-570). Each decision resulted in an appeal and subsequent remand by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The BOCC's third decision was appealed to LUBA by Keith and Janet Nash (LUBA No. 2010-082). LUBA issued a Final Opinion and Order on February 5, 2011. 4-R Equipment, on September 25,2014, requested the Planning Division initiate the remand process and schedule a forthcoming public hearing. A work session with the BOCC is scheduled for November 5,2014 and a hearing date for November 12,2014. Staffis required to notify all the parties to the original proceedings of the remand hearing. Staff is also soliciting comments from the Bureau of Land Management, including issues associated with sage grouse. Those comments are forthcoming. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The Board's hearing costs are factored into the remand hearing fee. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: The Board is required to hear the applications, which will be limited to the two issues raised by LUBA in their 2011 Final Order and Opinion. Staff is sending notice of the hearing to all parties. ATTENDANCE: Paul Blikstad, Laurie Craghead DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Planning Division staff will distribute the Board's written decision on these applications. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils DIvision P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: October 30,2014 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner RE: PA-04-8/ZC-04-6, Plan Amendment and Zone Change I Remand 1. Background The applicant, 4-R Equipment, LLC, in 2004 initiated an application for a: • Plan Amendment to add the subject property, adjacent to Highway 20 and Spencer Wells Road near Millican to the County's Goal 5 surface mining inventory of mineral and aggregate resources; and, • Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-HR) to Surface Mining (SM), for approximately 365 acres. The applications have been approved locally three different times through written decisions by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), in December 2006 (Document 2006-609), October 2008 (Document No. 2008-536), and September 2010 (Document No.2010-570). Each decision resulted in an appeal and subsequent remand by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The BOCC's third decision was appealed to LUBA by Keith and Janet Nash (LUBA No. 2010-082).1 LUBA issued a Final Opinion and Order on February 5, 2011. It has been over 3.5 years since LUBA issued their third Final Opinion and Order. The timeframe for this process has remained under the applicant's control. It is not due to any delay on Deschutes County's part. 2. Recent Remand Order LUBA's Order states the following: 1 The first two appeals to LUBA were submitted by Clay and Tammera Walker, owners of property across Highway 20 from the proposed surface mine. Quality Services Perfonned 'With Pride liTo summarize, remand is again necessary for (1) the county to expand the impact area to include the Flat Pasture or to identify substantial evidence in the record that supports its decision to limit the impact area to one-half mile from the proposed mine; and (2) to evaluate any conflicts with petitioners' agricultural operations in the impact area that the county designates, including whether the proposed mine would cause sage grouse to abandon the area and seek habitat on petitioners' other allotments.II 4-R Equipment, on September 25, 2014, requested the Planning Division initiate the remand process and schedule a forthcoming public hearing. A work session with the BOee is scheduled for November 5, 2014 and a hearing date for November 12, 2014. Staff is required to notify all the parties to the original proceedings of the remand hearing. comments from the Bureau of Land Management, including issues grouse. Those comments are forthcoming. 3. Attachments Attached with this memorandum are the following: • BOee written decision, Document No.2010-570 • Map showing the mining site and surrounding area • LUBA Final Opinion and Order, No. 2010-082 • Applicant's remand request • Applicant's burden of proof Staff is also soliciting associated with sage • Letter from Roger Borine regarding agricultural use, noise, and sage grouse issues associated with the mining site • Letter from Stephen Roth regarding farming adjacent to the mine Attachments: 1. BOee Written Decision (Document No.201 0-570) 2. Map of Mining Site and Surrounding Area 3. LUBA Final Opinion and Order (LUBA No. 2010-082) 4. Remand Request 5. Burden of Proof 6. Roger Borine Letter 7. Stephen Roth Letter 4-R EQUIPMENT, LLC / PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE MATRIX PA-04-8 / ZC-04-8 (LUBA No. 2010-082 on REMAND) The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has directed Deschutes County to: (l) either analyze an expanded impact area that includes the "Flat Pasture" or to identify substantial evidence in the record that supports its decision to limit the impact area to one-half mile from the proposed mine, and (2) to evaluate any conflicts with the agricultural operations of property owned by Petitioner within the impact area. Issue Board Options Information in Record S taff Comment 1. Should the impact analysis area be limited to one-half mile from the proposed mine or expanded to include sage grouse leks outside of the one-half mile analysis area? a. The Board previously decided not to expand the analysis area to include distant sage grouse leks . LUBA affirmed this finding. The issue is no long available for review. 1. The nearest lek is approximately 1.19 miles from the proposed mine This finding is only included to show that the sage grouse issue has previously been addressed, and is not a part of this proceeding . 2. Should the impact analysis area be limited to one-half mile from the proposed mine or expanded to include the entire "Flat Pasture" because of a potential conflicts with agricultural operations occurring on the Flat Pasture? a. b. The Board can find that evidence exists in the Record to support using the standard one-half mile impact analysis area. The Board can fmd the evidence in the Record supports expanding the impact analysis area to include the entire "Flat 1. The Flat Pasture is 5,010 acres or 7.3 square miles; it is separated from the proposed mine by a 200 ft. setback and a paved road; grazing is permitted from November 1 to December 15. 2. Prior argument from Keith and Janet Nash (former holders of Flat Pasture grazing allotment): mining will cause sage grouse to relocate to active grazing areas, which will cause BLM to curtail grazing rights outside of half-mile; noises from mining will disturb cattle 3. Roger Borine letter: mining noises not louder than other noises in the area (gunshots) and dissipate to near ambient noise levels at 1,500 ft.; generally no affects on cattle at likely distances as grazing primarily occurs in southwest portion of the Flat Pasture (not near the mine) because that is where water is available and use of hay is permitted; if sage grouse were to migrate it would likely not be to southwest corner of Flat Pasture 4. Stephen Roth letter: has not found a conflict with past experiences raising cattle in proximity Staff believes that the one-half mile impact analysis area was and is sufficient to determine any potential conflicts with agricultural operations on the Flat Pastu re. , -----­- Pasture"' to mining operations; current holder of the Flat Pasture grazing allotment. 5. BlM letter: takes no position on the Borine letter or whether the mine would lead to a curtailment of grazing rights. 6. LUBA remand opinion said that Nash argument is based on "several levels of speculative causation" but required County to address the argument. - --­ {06829091-{)0495779;1 } - Issue Board Options Information in Record Staff C omment Does the evidence in the Record support the Board rmding that the proposed Zone Change3_ will not have any negative impacts on agricultural operations within one-half mile? 4. Should there be further conditions regarding timing of operations? a. The Board can fmd that evidence exi sts in the Rec ord that no negative impacts will occur on agricultural operations within one half mile of the proposed mine. b. The Board can fmd the evidence in the Record reveals a conflict with agricultural operations within one-half mile of the proposed mine . a. If a conflict is found, County must identify "reasonable and practicable" measures to mitigate conflict. a. Board can find existing conditions are sufficient. b. Board can find conflicts with agricultural operations require further conditions . 1 . Prior argument from Keith and Janet Nash (former holders of Flat Pasture grazing allotment): mining will cause sage grouse to relocate to active grazing areas within one-half mile of proposed mine, which will cause BlM to curtail grazing rights inside of half-mile; noises from mining will disturb cattle within one-half mile 2. Roger Borine letter: same arguments as issue 112 above; generally no affects on cattle at likely distances; noise levels will decrease over time as blasting will occur at lower depths; prior reductions in graz i ng rights were self imposed by the Nashs; sage grouse would not likely migrate to southwest portion of Flat Pasture (where cattle are most likely to be) therefore BlM not likely to curtail grazing rights . 3. Stephen Roth letter: has not found a conflict with past experiences raising cattle in proximity to mining operations; has an agreement to graze cattle on buffer land owned by Applicant; current holder of Flat Pasture grazing allotment. 4. BlM letter that takes no position on the Borine letter or whether the mine would lead to a curtailment of grazing rights. 5. LUBA indicated that finding a conflict with agricultural practices based on potential sage grouse impacts "relies on several levels of speculative causation ." (lUBA No. 2010-082, p.ll) l. Board established 20 conditions of approval including : The only limitation listed in thea. limits on blasting in severe winter weather due to antelope winter range conditions and when religious or cultural activities occur at Walker property Board's last decision on mining was ceasing of blasting and crushingb. Monitoring of vibrations and prevailing winds c. Coordination with cattle grazing time periods. during periods of severe winter 2. Applicant indicates blasting would typically occur in winter months due to availability of workers weather . The applicant has and fewer conflicts due to spring/summer/fall activities. indicated that the mining site 3 . Stephen Roth letter states no conflicts in past experiences grazing cattle in close proximity to all would be utilized year round. forms of mining operations. -- - -'-- ---­ {0 682909I -0049 577 9;1 Plan Amendment from Agriculture (AG) to Surface Mining Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFUHR) to Surface Mini Legend PA -04 -08 I ZC -04 -06 C Proposed Zone Change Boundary County Zoning EFUHR • Horse Ridge Subzone ® -..._---­ _ FP • Flood Pla in ---­ SM • Surface Mining (P roposed) .~~~~~~--~.,-=~ ~1%..201'' ATTORNEYS Neil R. Bryant John A. Berge Sharon R. Smith John D. Sorlie Mark G. Reinecke Melissa P. Lande Paul 1. Taylor Jeremy M. Green Melinda Thomas Heather J. (Hepburn) Hansen Garrett Chrostek Danielle Lordi September 25, 2014 Via: e-mail and regular mail Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, Oregon 97701 Paul.Blikstad@deschutes.org Re: Nash v. Deschutes County Oregon Land Use Board of Appeal Case No. 2010-082 Deschutes County Planning File Nos. PA-04-08 and ZC-04-06 Dear Paul: Applicant 4-R Equipment, LLC requests that PA-04-08/ZC-04-06, which was remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals in LUBA Case No. 2010-082 be reactivated as of September 29, 20) 4 and that the County schedule appropriate proceedings to process the remand. Applicant submits the attached Burden of Proof on Remand into the record as its argument on remand. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sharon R. Smith smith@bljlawyers.com Enclosure RECl!lVfD IY: d~ SEP 2 6 2014 DELIVERED BY: CAr,-$jllZ (06829091-00480483;I) A legacy of service to our community. 591 SW Mill View Way. Bend. OR 9770.2 I P 541.38.2.4331 I F 541.389.3386 I bljlawyers.com BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER ) File Nos.: PA-04-81 ZC-04-8 ) BURDEN OF PROOF (LUBA No.: 2010-082) ) ON REMAND ) APPLICANTI PROPERTY OWNER: 4-R Equipment, LLC clo Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis, PC 591 SW Mill View Way Bend, OR 97702 ATTORNEY: Sharon R. Smith Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, PC 591 SW Mill View Way Bend,Oregon 97702 REQUEST: Applicant requests a Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 385 acres from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-HRlFP/LM/W A) to Surface Mining (SM). LOCATION: 57720,57750 and 57600 Spencer Wells Road, Deschutes County Assessor's Tax Map 19-15-00, Tax Lots: 902, 1000, and 1001,'Deschutes County, Oregon. I. EXHIBITS: 1. LUBA -Final Opinion and Order dated 2/15/2011 (Nash v. Deschutes County, LUBA Case No.: 2010-082) 2. Site Map 3. Letter from Roger Borine 4. Letter of support from Stephen Roth II. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Burden of Proof on Remand is to address the questions presented by LUBA on remand in LUBA Case No.: 2010-082. III. BACKGROUND: In 2004, Applicant applied for a Zone Change and Plan Amendment to rezone 385 acres of EFU land to SM. The County approved this request, but the decision was appealed to LUBA in Walker v. Deschutes County, 55 Or LUBA 93 (2007). LUBA remanded and the County approved the application on remand. Opponents appealed and LUBA remanded the decision for a second time in Walker v. Deschutes County, 59 OR LUBA 488 (2009). Both of the first two appeals centered on the County's assessment of off-site impacts and its determination of the size of the impact area. A third appeal, Nash v. Deschutes County, LUBA No.: 2010-082, followed the County's second approval on remand, which resulted in the current remand. In this third remand, LUBA has directed the County to (1) either analyze an expanded impact area that includes the "Flat Pasture" or to identify substantial evidence in the record that supports its decision to limit the impact area to one-half mile from the proposed mine, and (2) to evaluate any conflicts with the agricultural operations of property owned by the Nashs within the impact area. Page 1 of2 -BURDEN OF PROOF ON REMAND {06829091-00440295;21 IV. ARGUMENT: 1. The Flat Pasture Should be Excluded from the Impact Area Attached as Exhibit J is a letter from Roger Borine, a licensed soil scientist and expert on agricultural operations, which indicates that surface mining operations will have few if any effects on the Flat Pasture. Specifically, the letter details how mining operations will have minimal effect on livestock and will occur while the portion of the Flat Pasture proximate to the Subject Property is generally not in use. Therefore, there is no need to expand the impact area to include this property. 2. The Proposed Zone Change Will Not Have Any Negative Impacts on Petitioner's Agricultural Operations. The Borine letter indicates that there are few if any effects of the agricultural operations on the property fonnerly owned by the N ashs. In any event, the Nashs are no longer owners and the current owner, Stephen Roth, issued a letter of support, attached as Exhibit 4, in which he attests that mining operations have no effect on their agricultural operations. 3. Applicant has Acquired Additional Property to Mitigate Impacts Since filing P A-04-8/ZC-04-8, Applicant has acquired 3 additional parcels (Tax Lots 800 and 801 of Assessor's Map 19-14-25 and Tax Lot 908 of Assessor's Map 19-15) to the northwest and west of the Subject Property. These parcels total approximately 65 acres and will provide additional buffer to adjacent properties from the impacts, if any, from mining operations. 4. Incorporation of Prior Record(s) Applicant incorporates by reference the entire record for P A-04-8/ZC-04-8 (LUBA Case Nos.: 2007 -013, 2008-189 and 2010-082) to support approval of its application, including prior Burdens of Proof and legal argument submitted by the Applicant. V. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons Applicant satisfies all of the criteria applicable to the requested approvaL Submitted this 25 th day of September, 2014 BRYANT, LOVLIEN & JARVIS, P.C. Sharon R. Smith OSB #862920 Garrett Chrostek OSB # 122965 Of Attorneys for Applicant Page 2 of2 -BURDEN OF PROOF ON REMAND {06829091..()()440295;2 } Sage West, LLC RogerBorin~CPS~ CPS~PWS Soils, Wetlands, Wildlife Habitat (541) 610-2457 September 5, 2014 Following is an assessment and conclusion for the effect of development and full operation of the Spencer Wells Mine on livestock and ranching operations. 1. Livestock and ranching operations of the EWR will not be impacted by the development and full operation of the Spencer Wells Mine Existing Agricultural Operations The USDI-Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Horse Ridge Allotment (HRA) is approximately 22,152 acres and consists of six pastures. Each pasture in this allotment has an established season of use and planned use period (to spread the grazing time period to assure proper utilization), which are outlined in BLM's Resource Management Plan (RMP) and addressed in detail within the Allotment Management Plan (AMP). The former Evans Well Ranch (EWR) was the only permitted ranching operation to graze livestock on the allotment.1 The Horse Ridge allotment's Flat Pasture is approximately 5,010 acres or 7.3 square miles. This is the only pasture that shares, in part, a common boundary with the proposed Spencer Wells Mine (SWM) along the common boundary of Tax Map 19-14-25, Tax Lot 1100 and the SW corner of Tax Map 19-15-00, Tax Lot 902. At the common boundary, which is a quarter mile long, SWM is separated from the Flat Pasture by a 200 foot setback and two fences and a paved road. Grazing on the Flat Pasture is only permitted from November 1 to December 15. Grazing management practices such as watering, salting or feeding supplements to attract and evenly distribute cattle and promote proper plant utilization in the northeastern portion of the Flat Pasture and near the common border, were not Identified or used on a routine basis by EWR. Given that these management practices are not used, and the limited amount of forage available, there is nothing to attract cows to this location. Therefore, the occurrence of cattle near the Spencer Wells Mine, while In operation, would be highly unlikely and only incidental. The five remaining pastures in the Horse Ridge Allotment are a minimum of 2 air miles from the SWM. This is well beyond the point at which sounds from the mine would be audible as discussed below. Noise EWR opposed the SWM because, in its view, the blasting and other activities may adversely affect their grazing operations. Noise is measured in Decibels (volume) and Hertz (pitch). Cattle are able to hear a wide range of frequencies ranging from 16-40,000 Hertz (Hz). For comparison, humans are able to hear 20-20,000 Hz. Existing decibel levels in the Flat Pasture range from 60 to 140 dB from such sources as traffic on Hwy 20 (90 dB), Spencer Wells Rd (90 dB), Evans Well Rd (90 dB), shooting (140 dB), motorcycles and staging areas (100 dB), and home and recreation sites (60-125 dB). High Frequency sounds of 2,000-4,000 Hz are the most damaging; a "silent" dog whistle produces 5,400-12,800 Hz; a high octave produced by a piccolo is 2,000·4,000 Hz. Blasting produces a low frequency (30-40Hz) shockwave, which is characterized by an abrupt, nearly discontinuous change in the volume. Shockwave energy dissipates quickly with distance (See the attached Apollo Geophysics Corp. letter for additional information of shockwaves and vibrations). SWM blasting and crushing noise will be less than 124 dB at 500 feet and less than 43dB at 1,500 ft. For comparison, the ambient noise level of the area was measured at 41.7 dB and a semi-truck driving 55 miles per hour on Highway 20 produces 84.3 dB (See the attached Kleinfelder report). Noise levels are greatest in the first blast and first crushing, as it occurs on the surface. Subsequent blasting and crushing will take place below the surface. Subterranean shockwaves dissipate more quickly and travel a shorter distance. Regardless of blasting depth or distance from the blast, all SWM activities are within the existing 60-140 dB levels regularly occurring from other existing activities in the Flat Pasture as shown in the attached Kleinfelder report. Few cattle will be grazing nearby because there is a limited grazing season on the Flat Pasture, the grazing area is over 5,000 acres, and no supplements are employed to attract them to this location. I Evans Well Ranch (owned by Nash) was the prior holder of the allotment. The current holder of the allotment is Roth. 64770 Melinda Court rborine@bendbroadband.com Bend, OR 97701 Exhibit R-3 1of2 Sage West, LLC Roger Sorine, CPSS. CPSC. PWS Soils, Wetlands, Wildlife Habitat (541) 610-2457 Even when cattle are in proximity to mining operations, mining operations do not seem to have a significant adverse effect. Local rancher Stephen Roth currently runs cattle within 500 feet of 4-R Equipment's Horse Ridge mine while operations are ongoing. Mr. Roth concluded that his cattle do not seem to experience any adverse effect from noise or vibrations associated with mining operations at this proximity. The distance between the Horse Ridge mine and Mr. Roth's cattle is comparable to the common boundary of the HRA to the SWM. Also, Mr. Roth is now the holder of Flat Pasture allotment and has no concerns about the SWM operation. Therefore, blasting and crushing operations will not disturb cattle or ranching operations as the mining activities are well within existing decibel levels. Sage Grouse The former owner of the EWR also claimed the SWM would affect their agricultural operations because of potential impacts on sage grouse. The BLM previously reduced EWR's use of Flat Pasture to provide additional winter habitat for sage grouse for reasons unrelated to the SWM. EWR argued that mine blasting may cause sage grouse to move away from the SWM and onto their allotment. If that were to occur, EWR argued the BlM may further reduce or eliminate grazing of Flat Pasture to the detriment of EWR's operations. The SWM will not have the effect claimed by the former owner of the EWR. First, BlM grazing records indicate that EWR itself, not BlM, requested the season of use in Flat Pasture be changed to November 1 to December 15 from the previous period of January 1 to October 31. This change allowed EWR to align movement of their cattle from adjoining grazing areas (the USFS permit to the HRA's Evans Wells Pasture then to the Flat Pasture) with the permitted seasons of use on those respective grazing areas in a logical sequence. Prior to the change, the permit allowed 125 AUM's for approximately 3 months. Following the change, 125 AUM's are permitted for 1 Y. months in the Flat Pasture. EWR's requested change likely increased the amount of forage available for sage grouse by shortening the grazing season. Additionally, winter grazing primarily occurs in the southwestern portion of the Flat Pasture where water is available and feeding of hay permitted. Thus, even if sage grouse were to migrate due to the operations of the SWM to the Flat Pasture for winter habitat, the likely area of migration would not be used by cattle. Second, BlM range management speCialists, wildlife biologists, Area and District managers and the former Permittee (EWR) had agreed on a grazing management plan for the Horse Ridge Allotment that retains historic grazing use levels as identified in the leslie Ranches CRMP (the controlling document). This current grazing plan, which contemplated sage grouse issues and the proposed SWM, did not reduce the total land or forage available for grazing cattle. Further, ODFW has submitted comments acknowledging that the mitigation proposed by the SWM will be sufficient to address their concerns for sage grouse. In summary, there is no evidence that the proposed SWM mine will affect sage grouse in a claimed manner or otherwise negatively affect agricultural operations adjoining the SWM. Rather, the evidence shows that if the mining operations were to cause sage grouse to migrate onto adjoining properties, sage grouse will not be impacted as cattle do not use potential wintering habitat. The BlM agreement also suggests the SWM is not going to cause that agency to reduce grazing opportunities on the Flat Pasture. Conclusion Because the mine will not contribute noise above that already existing in the val1ey, will have a negligible, if any, effect on surrounding agricultural operations, and there will be no negative impacts on sage grouse, there is no basis to extend the impact area beyond one-half mile from the mine site. Regards, Roger Bonne, CPSS/SC, PWS 64770 Melinda Court t1Jorine@bendbroadband·com Send, OR 97701 Exhibit R-3 20f2 October 16, 2013 Deschutes County Commwlity Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, Oregon 97701 Re: Support of Surface Mine Rezone (PA 04-8 I ZC 04-6) The purpose ofthis Jetter is to support the land use application of 4-R Equipment to re­ zone property to Surface Mining. I have a cattle ranch operation and recently purchased property in the SUlTOunding area ftom Charles (Keith) and Janet Nash (Tax Map 20-14· 00, Tax Lot 400) along with several grazing allotments. I have worked with 4-R Equipment, and find they are a responsible mining operator. Their mining operations are compatible with cattle grazing. At their nearby Horse Ridge mining operation. we have an agreement wtaere I can use their private lands adjacent to the mine to graze, supplement feed and water my cattle during the winter. The cattle are within SOO feet of the mining operation and the cattle are not adversely affected by the noise, vibration or any mining impacts. Recently, the BLM has restricted cattle operations from supplement feeding on BLM grazing allotments during the winter. lbis bas a ~vere impact on my operations. 't-R Equipment wiU allow me to graze, supplement teed and water my cattle (using their water when available) on the property adjacent to the proposed surface mine. The cattle will be on Tax Map 19-14-25, Tax Lots 800, 802 and 1000. The proposed surface mine is adjacent on Tax Map 19-1 S-OO, Tax Lots 902, 1000 and 1001. This wiIJ be of great benefit to me and I do not see any problem with feeding and watering cattle next to the future mining operations. The security fencing provided by 4-R will keep the cattle from the mining operation and the mining will not affect my cattle. I fully support their zone cbange. Sincerely. A'-F:;IM- Stephen Roth 41600 Hwy20 Brothers, OR 97712 Exhibit R-4 1 of 1 ~ Subj eet :'roperty ~ Additional Property O~-med by Applicant 1 of 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 4 KEITH NASH and JANET NASH, 5 Petitioners, 6 7 vs. 8 9 DESCHUTES COUNTY, )0 Respondent, 11 12 and 13 14 4-R EQUIPMENT, LLC, 15 Intervenor-Respondent. 16 17 LUBA No. 2010-082 18 19 FINAL OPINION 20 AND ORDER 21 22 Appeal from Deschutes County. 23 24 David A. Moser, Portland, filed the petition for review and argued on behalf of 25 petitioner. 26 27 No appearance by Deschutes County. 28 29 Robert S. Lovlien, Bend, filed the response brief and argued on behalf of intervenor­ 30 respondent. With him on the brief was Bryant, Lovlien and Jarvis PC. 31 32 RY AN, Board Member; HOLSTUN, Board Chair; BASSHAM, Board Member, 33 participated in the decision. 34 35 REMANDED 02/15/2011 36 37 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is governed by the 38 provisions of ORS 197.850. Page 1 Exhibit R-1 1 of 12 Opinion by Ryan. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioners appeal a county decision that approves a plan amendment and zone 4 change to allow a gravel mine. 5 MOTION TO INTERVENE 6 4-R Equipment, LLC (intervenor), the applicant below, moves to intervene on the 7 side of respondent. There is no opposition to the motion, and it is allowed. 8 FACTS 9 This case is before us for the third time. I In 2006, intervenor applied to have its 385­ 10 acre property placed on the county's inventory of mineral and aggregate sites, and to rezone II the property to Surface Mining (SM), to facilitate proposed mining and crushing of basalt 12 rock. Mining operations will occur on the subject property from November through 13 February. As relevant here, the subject 385-acre property is adjacent to a cattle ranch, the 14 Evans Well Ranch, an approximately 22,000-acre ranching operation that is comprised in 15 part of six pastures that are leased to petitioners by the Bureau of Land Management 16 (BLM). 2 The BLM manages and controls the use of the pastures and assigns periods of 17 grazing for each of the six pastures. One of those pastures, the Flat Pasture, is approximately 18 5,000 acres in size and shares a common boundary of approximately 1,320 feet with the 19 subject property. The subject property is separated from Flat Pasture by a fence and by 20 Spencer Well Road, a paved road. A well that does not freeze in the winter is located within 21 the Flat Pasture, more than two miles from the pasture's common boundary with the subject 22 property. 1 In Walker v. Deschutes County, 55 Or LUBA 93 (2007) (Walker J) and again in Walker v. Deschutes County, 59 Or LUBA 488 (2009) (Walker IJ), we remanded the county's decision. 2 The Evans Well Ranch is sometimes referred to in the record as the BLM's Horse Ridge Allotment. Record 117. Page 2 Exhibit R-1 2 of 12 After our remand in Walker v. Deschutes County, 59 Or LUBA 488 (2009) (Walker 2 If) to address evidence regarding impacts of the mine on the Evans Well Ranch agricultural 3 operations, intervenor submitted into the record a report (Borine Report) that concluded that 4 the proposed mine would not have an adverse effect on any of the Evans Well Ranch 5 agricultural operations that occur in the Flat Pasture. Record 114-121. Based on the Borine 6 Report, the county again approved the applications. This appeal followed. 7 FIRST AND SECOND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 8 A. Applicable Law 9 OAR 660-023-0180(5) sets out the procedures and standards for determining whether 10 to allow mining of a significant mineral resource. OAR 660-023-0180(5)(a) includes a 11 requirement to determine an "impact area" in order to identify conflicts with the proposed 12 mine.3 Generally, the rule limits the size of the "impact area" to 1,500 feet from the mining 13 area, unless "factual information indicates significant potential conflicts beyond this 14 distance." (Emphasis added.) In the present case, the county apparently chose an impact 15 area of one-half mile from the property boundary of the tract that includes the mining site, 16 instead of the 1,500 foot minimum specified by 660-023-0180(5)(a), because the half-mile 17 distance corresponds to the Surface Mining Impact Area overlay zone that is automatically 18 imposed under Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.56.020, which requires that "[t]he SMIA 19 zone shall apply to all property located within one-half mile of the boundary of a surface 20 mining zone." ) OAR 660-023-0180(5) states in relevant part: "For significant mineral and aggregate sites, local governments shall decide whether mining is permitted. * * * "(a) The local government shall determine an impact area for the purpose of identifying conflicts with proposed mining and processing activities. The impact area shall be large enough to include uses listed in subsection (b) of this section and shall be limited to 1,500 feet from the boundaries of the mining area, except where factual information indicates significant potential conflicts beyond this distance. * * ... Page 3 Exhibit R-1 3 of 12 The rule also requires the county to determine existing land uses within the impact 2 area that will be adversely affected by the proposed mine, and specifically to consider 3 "[c ]onflicts with agricultural practices" within the impact area. 4 The designation of the 4 impact area and the assessment of conflicts with agricultural practices within the impact area 5 are sometimes interrelated, because in order to determine the size of the impact area, and 6 hence which existing land uses are subject to the adversely affected analysis under OAR 660­ 7 023-01S0(5)(b) and (c), some evaluation of potential impacts on agricultural practices in the 8 larger vicinity of the proposed mine may be required. 9 B Walker I and Walker II 10 In Walker v. Deschutes County, 55 Or LUBA 93 (2007) (Walker I), we remanded the 11 county's decision approving the applications for the county (1) to consider whether to 4 OAR 660-023-0IS0(5)(b) and (c) provide, in relevant part: "(b) The local government shall determine existing * * * land uses within the impact area that will be adversely affected by proposed mining operations and shall specify the predicted conflicts. * * * For determination of conflicts from proposed mining of a significant aggregate site, the local government shall limit its consideration to the following: "(A) Conflicts due to noise, dust, or other discharges with regard to those existing and approved uses and associated activities (e.g., houses and schools) that are sensitive to such discharges; ,,***** "(0) Conflicts with other Goal 5 resource sites within the impact area that are shown on an acknowledged list of significant resources and for which the requirements of Goal 5 have been completed at the time the PAPA is initiated; "(E) Conflicts with agricultural practices[.]" "(c) "The local government shall determine reasonable and practicable measures that would minimize the conflicts identified under subsection (b) of this section. To determine whether proposed measures would minimize conflicts to agricultural practices, the requirements of ORS 215.296 shall be followed rather than the requirements ofthis section. If reasonable and practicable measures are identified to minimize all identified conflicts, mining shall be allowed at the site and subsection (d) of this section is not applicable. If identified conflicts cannot be minimized, subsection (d) of this section applies." (Emphasis added.) Page 4 Exhibit R-1 4 of 12 expand the impact area beyond the one-half mile that the county concluded was appropriate, 2 to include other grazing lands that are part of the Evans Well Ranch, and (2) to determine 3 possible mining conflicts with agricultural operations on the Evans Well Ranch. We 4 sustained the petitioners' assignments of error in part because there was evidence and 5 testimony in the record that indicated that the Evans Well Ranch grazing operations beyond 6 the one-half mile impact area may also be impacted by the mining, and that blasting and 7 other activities from the proposed mine could adversely affect their grazing operation. 8 In Walker II, we sustained the petitioners' assignments of error that again challenged 9 the county's decision not to expand the impact area beyond one-half mile and its conclusion 10 that the mining would not conflict with agricultural practices within that one-half mile II impact area. We agreed with petitioners that the county erred in limiting its analysis to a 40­ 12 acre parcel that is part of the Evans Well Ranch immediately adjacent to the subject property, 13 and failing to consider petitioners' evidence and testimony that the proposed mine would 14 produce conflicts with grazing on areas of the Flat Pasture located both within and beyond 15 one-half mile from the proposed mine. 5 S We held in Walker II: "Petitioners are correct that the county's findings with respect to the size of the impact area and conflicts with agricultural uses within the one-half mile impact area appear to be based on the understanding that the only Evans Wells Ranch grazing allotment located in the vicinity of the mining site is the adjacent 40-acre parcel. The county apparently failed to appreciate that other Evans Well Ranch grazing allotments are located nearby, some within the one-half mile SMIA overlay zone and some outside the zone. For purposes of determining the size of the impact area under OAR 66O-023-0180(5)(a), and whether 'factual information indicates significant potential conflicts beyond' the initial 1,500-foot impact area provided under the administrative rule, the county must sometimes evaluate evidence regarding land that is located outside that initial 1,500-foot impact area, and potentially some distance from the mining site. The county's failure to appreciate that there are Evans Well Ranch grazing allotments in the vicinity other than the adjacent 40-acre allotment, such as the Flat Pasture area with its water source, means that the county's determination regarding the size of the impact area is flawed. Remand is necessary for the county to consider all relevant evidence regarding all Evans Well Ranch grazing allotments that are in the vicinity and potentially affected by the proposed mining operation, and to determine the size of the impact area based on whether 'factual information indicates significant potential conflicts' with grazing on those allotments. Page 5 Exhibit R-1 5 of 12 C. The County's Latest Decision to Approve the Mine 2 The county found: 3 "The Board concludes that there will be no significant potential conflict with 4 the Evans Well Ranch or its grazing allotments on the BLM property adjacent 5 to the proposed mining site, including the Flat Pasture grazing allotment west 6 of the proposed mining site. The Board finds that the written report and oral 7 testimony submitted by Roger Borine, the applicant's consultant, sufficiently 8 demonstrates that the proposed mining operation, including blasting, will not 9 impact to any great extent the cattle grazing on the Flat Pasture allotment, or 10 that other impacts of the proposed mining would cause cattle on that allotment II to abandon the Flat Pasture and instead graze more heavily on privately 12 owned pastures on the ranch itself, outside the impact area. 13 "The Borine agricultural report has the following conclusions on page 6 of the 14 report: 15 '''The Flat Pasture is detennined to be the 'impact area'. It is the only 16 pasture in the Horse Ridge Allotment that shares a common boundary 17 with the [subject property] and is approximately 5,010 acres or 7.3 18 square miles in size. The five remaining pastures are over two air 19 miles from [the subject property.] 20 '''The optimal period for grazing annual and perennial grasses by 21 livestock near the [mine] is in late March, April, May and early June. 22 Mining operations will occur during the months of November­ 23 February. No ranching management practices in the northeast portion 24 of the impact area were identified to attract and evenly distribute cattle 25 and promote proper plant utilization. The occurrence of cattle near the 26 [mine] while in operation would be highly unlikely and only "Even if it is presumed that the one-half mile impact area chosen by the county is justified for purposes of OAR 660-023-01S0(5)(a), remand is necessary in any case, because the county's findings regarding conflicts with agricultural uses under OAR 660-023-0IS0(5)(b)(E) also appear to be based on the misapprehension that the only grazing within the impact area occurs on the adjacent 4O-acre parcel. The Nashes testified, and intervenor does not dispute, that other Evans Well Ranch grazing allotments are located within the one-half mile SMIA overlay zone. Finally, the county's findings under OAR 660-023-OISO(5)(b)(E) do not address the Nashes' testimony regarding noise impacts on their cattle operation, or indeed noise impacts on cattle at all. The findings cite fencing and a 200-foot buffer area as the principal bases for concluding that the mine operation will not conflict with agricultural practices, that is, will not force a significant change in accepted fanning practices or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices. However, the Nashes submitted specific testimony regarding noise impacts on their grazing operation, and the county's findings neither address that testimony nor demonstrate that fencing and a 200-foot buffer area are sufficient to ensure that the mining operation will not conflict with agricultural practices, for purposes of OAR 660-023-0 I S0(5)(e)." Walker II at 495-96. Page 6 Exhibit R-1 6 of 12 I incidental. Blasting and crushing operations are well within existing 2 decibel levels now occurring within the impact area. 3 '"All relevant evidence' * * * to the impact area that may impact a 4 ranching operation, and specifically the mining operation, was 5 identified and assessed for its potential impact. This analysis 6 determined and supports the conclusion that the [mine] will not impact 7 the Evans Well Ranch operations. In addition, the [mine] will not 8 create noise or disturbance over and above already existing conditions 9 on the cattle and the cattle operation. 10 "The Board finds that the Borine Report is sufficient evidence that no 11 significant impacts of the mine will reach the remaining pastures and that 12 there will not be an impact from the mine on either the ranch itself, or on any 13 of the related grazing allotments on the BLM land in the vicinity of the mine. 14 Despite [petitioners'} stating in their letter that the actual graze runs longer, 15 the Board finds the statement by Mr. Borine that the allotment currently is not 16 for that longer time period to be credible. Given that the mining operations 17 will occur during the months of November -February, the Board finds that 18 the timing of al/otted grazing on BLM land versus the mining operations, 19 significantly minimizes. ifnot eliminated, the impacts between the grazing and 20 the mining operations. Therefore, the original one-half mile impact area 21 chosen by the Board is sti II the appropriate impact area. 22 "As a result, the Board finds the testimony and report by Mr. Borine to be 23 more persuasive than [petitioners'] comments as to the potential impact to 24 cattle grazing in the area, and specifically the Flat Pasture Allotment. Based 25 upon the size of the Evans Well Ranch BLM grazing allotment, the location 26 of the grazing allotment, and the evidence from a similar mining site, the 27 Board concludes that the proposed mining would not result in a 'significant 28 potential conflict' with respect to the Evans Well Ranch grazing allotment and 29 the operation of the ranch." Record 19-20 (Emphasis added; footnote 30 omitted). 31 D. Assignments of Error 32 In their first assignment of error, petitioners challenge the county's decision not to 33 expand the impact area under OAR 660-023-0180(5)(a) beyond one-half mile.6 According 34 to petitioners, there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the county's decision 6 Although petitioners argue that the county's decision misconstrues applicable law, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and that its findings are inadequate, the crux of their argument is a substantial evidence challenge to the county's reliance on the Borine Report in light of conflicting evidence presented by petitioners. We address those substantial evidence arguments. Page 7 Exhibit R-1 7 of 12 and the "factual information" in the record demonstrates that there are "significant potential 2 conflicts" with petitioners' agricultural operations in the Flat Pasture beyond one-half mile 3 from the proposed mining area. 7 4 Petitioners first argue that the county's decision to limit the size of the "impact area" 5 under OAR 660-023-01 80(5)(a) is not supported by the Borine Report, because according to 6 petitioners, that report concluded that the "impact area" is the entire Flat Pasture and if the 7 county based its decision on the Borine Report, it should have designated the entire Flat 8 Pasture area as the "impact area" consistent with the Borine Report's conclusion. While the 9 Borine Report does use the phrase "impact area," we understand the report's use of that 10 phrase to refer to the area of analysis for purposes of determining whether there is "factual 11 information" indicating significant potential conflicts beyond the default 1,500 foot impact 12 area under OAR 660-023-0180(5), or beyond the one-half mile impact area chosen by the 13 county. 14 Petitioners next argue that a key assumption in the Borine Report and the county's 15 findings in reliance on the Borine Report is that there are no impacts from the mine because 16 cattle will graze on the Flat Pasture only during spring months, and not during the winter 17 months when the mine is in operation. According to petitioners, evidence in the record 18 regarding the BLM-allowed time period for grazing on the Flat Pasture confirms that grazing 19 occurs from November 1 to December 15, which is during the period when mining and 20 blasting are proposed. 7 Substantial evidence is evidence a reasonable person would rely on in reaching a decision. City 0/ Portlandv. Bureau 0/Labor and Ind., 298 Or 104, 119,690 P2d 475 (1984); Bay v. State Board o/Education, 233 Or 601, 605, 378 P2d 558 (1963); Carsey v. Deschutes County, 21 Or LUBA 118, ajJ'd 108 Or App 339, 815 P2d 233 (1991). In reviewing the evidence, however, we may not substitute our judgment for that oftbe local decision maker. Rather, we must consider all the evidence in the record to which we are directed, and determine whether, based on that evidence, the local decision maker's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. Younger v. City 0/Porlland, 305 Or 346,358-60, 752 P2d 262 (1988); 1000 Friends a/Oregon v. Marion County, 116 Or App 584, 588, 842 P2d 441 (1992). Page 8 Exhibit R-1 8 of 12 As noted above, mining will occur on the subject property from November through 2 February of each year. Based on the above-quoted findings, we understand the county to 3 have understood the Borine Report to presume or conclude that petitioners graze their cattle 4 in the Flat Pasture from late-March through early June, and that because mining will occur 5 between November and February, there will be no cattle grazing in the Flat Pasture area 6 during the months when mining is occurring and thus there will be no conflicts with 7 petitioners' ranching operation. However, the Borine Report does not explain the basis for 8 the apparent presumption that no grazing will occur when mining is occurring, and the pages 9 of the record cited to us are to the contrary. 10 During the proceedings on remand from Walker I, petitioners introduced evidence 1 j into the record that in 2008 the BLM-approved grazing schedule allowed petitioners to graze )2 their cattle in the Flat Pasture only from November I to December 15. Petition for Review l3 Appendix ER-8-10 (correspondence between BLM and petitioners stating that petitioners are 14 allowed to graze in the Flat Pasture from November 1 to December 15, 2008). During the 15 proceedings on remand from Walker II, petitioners testified orally and in writing that that 16 grazing schedule remained in effect, and that petitioners are allowed to graze their cattle on 17 the Flat Pasture from November I to December 15, 20 I O. Record 41 (letter from petitioners 18 so stating). That evidence is uncontroverted and is not addressed in either the Borine Report 19 or in the county's decision. s 20 The county's incorrect presumption that mining and grazing would not occur 21 simultaneously led the county to decide not to expand the impact area beyond one-half mile. 22 It also led the county to conclude that there would be no conflict with petitioners' ranching 23 operations within and beyond the one-half mile impact area. In their second assignment of 8 Although intervenor cites an email message from the author of the Borine Report which, according to intervenor, rebuts petitioners' evidence and testimony, we do not find anything in that email message that contradicts petitioners' testimony and evidence. Record 39. Page 9 Exhibit R-1 9 of 12 5 10 15 20 25 error, petitioners argue that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the 2 county's conclusion under OAR 660-023-0180(5)(b)(E) that the proposed mine will not 3 conflict with the Evans Well Ranch grazing operations within the Flat Pasture. Petitioners 4 point to evidence in the record that noise from the mine would conflict with cattle grazing on the Flat Pasture and would force those cattle to overuse pasture areas farther away from the 6 mine, resulting in increased costs of operation. Petition for Review Appendix ER-7. 7 Because the county's conclusion that the mine will not conflict with petitioners' agricultural 8 operations is also based on their incorrect conclusion that grazing will not occur during the 9 time when the mine is operating, for the same reasons set forth above, we conclude that no reasonable decision maker would rely on the Borine Report to reach that conclusion. II Finally, in portions of their first and second assignments of error, petitioners also 12 argue that the county erred in failing to consider whether to expand the impact area to 13 include other pastures or BLM allotments other than the Flat Pasture that are adjacent to the 14 subject property. Intervenor responds that petitioners are precluded from arguing that other pastures or BLM allotments other than the Flat Pasture should have been considered, because 16 that argument could have been made but was not made, in either Walker I or Walker II. We 17 agree. Beck v. City o/Tillamook, 313 Or 148, 831 P2d 678 (1992). 18 Further, petitioners argue that the county erred in failing to consider the mine's 19 potential impact on sage grouse in the area, which petitioners allege might lead BLM to reduce petitioners' grazing rights to protect sage grouse and if so would conflict with 21 petitioners' agricultural operations. With respect to impacts on sage grouse, intervenor 22 argues that Walker I and Walker II addressed issues regarding sage grouse and argues that 23 petitioners may not raise those issues again in this appeal. However, Walker I and Walker II 24 addressed an argument under OAR 660-023-0180(5)(b)(D) that the impact area should be expanded to include a sage grouse lek, or breeding site that is an identified Goal 5 resource 26 site in the county's comprehensive plan. See n 4. Walker I at 101-102; Walker II at 496-98. Page 10 Exhibit R-1 10 of 12 As we understand petitioners' argument, it is an argument under OAR 660-023­ 2 0180(5)(b)(E) that noise and blasting from the mine will conflict with their agricultural 3 operations because that noise and blasting could cause sage grouse to abandon the area and 4 seek winter habitat on portions of petitioners' ranch, which might lead BLM to reduce 5 grazing rights in order to protect limited forage for sage grouse. We recognized that 6 argument in Walker II and in part sustained petitioners' assignment of error that set out that 7 argument.9 Petitioners' supposition that the proposed mining will cause sage grouse to leave 8 the mining area and flee to petitioners' grazing lands for winter habitat, as opposed to ending 9 up on some other land, and their related supposition that the BLM will then reduce 10 petitioners' grazing operation on Flat Pasture, relies on several levels of speculative 11 causation. However, as far as we can tell, the county did not address that argument on 12 remand. On remand, the county should consider, in determining whether the proposed mine 13 conflicts with petitioners' agricultural operations, effects of the proposed mine on sage 14 grouse that winter in the impact area and the possibility that such effects could lead to a 15 reduction in lands available for grazing for petitioners' cattle. 16 To summarize, remand is again necessary for (1) the county to expand the impact 17 area to include the Flat Pasture or to identify substantial evidence in the record that supports 18 its decision to limit the impact area to one-half mile from the proposed mine; and (2) to 19 evaluate any conflicts with petitioners' agricultural operations in the impact area that the 9 In Walker II, we summarized the argument as follows: "According to petitioners, on remand the Nashes submitted additional testimony detailing specific impacts of the proposed mine on their grazing operation, including impacts on a nearby grazing allotment known as 'Flat Pasture' that has access to an important water source that does not freeze in the winter. • •• The Nashes explained that BLM recently reduced their use of Flat Pasture to provide additional winter habitat for sage grouse, and argues that the impaCI of mine blasting on nearby sage grouse populations may cause BLM to further reduce or eliminate grazing ofFlat Pasture." Walker II at 494. Page II Exhibit R-1 11 of 12 county designates, including whether the proposed mine would cause sage grouse to abandon 2 the area and seek winter habitat on petitioners' other allotments. 3 The first and second assignments of error are sustained, in part. 4 The county's decision is remanded. Page 12 Exhibit R-1 12 of 12 REVIEWED .~:::i:"'./~/~ LEGAL COUNSEL Recording Stamp Only DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FILE NUMBERS: PA-04-8. ZC-04-6 APPLICANT/OWNER: 4-R Equipment. LLC PO Box 5006 Bend. OR 97708 AGENT: Robert S. Lovlien Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis. P.C. P.O. Box 880 Bend. OR 97709 REQUEST: A plan amendment and zone change for 365 acres from . Exclusive Farm Use (EFU~HR) to Surface Mining (SM). STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad. Senior Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance B. Title 22 of the DCC, the Development Procedures Ordinance C. Title 23 of the DCC, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan D. OAR 660 Division 23, Procedures and Requirements for Complying with Goal 5 E. OAR 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments F. OAR 660-015, Statewide Planning Goals II. FINDINGS OF FACT: PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The procedural history for these applications was stated in the Board of County Commissioners' (hereinafter Board) two prior decisions. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remanded the Board's most recent decision (dated October 1, 2008) on September 22. 2009 (Walker vs. Deschutes County and 4R Equipment. LLC, LUBA No. 2008-189). Page 1 of 6 -DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PA-04-8, ZC-04-6 -DC Document No. 2010-570 DC The applicant submitted a letter to the County Planning Division requesting that the County start the remand proceedings; that letter was received by the County on June 17, 2010. The 9O-day period for a final decision required under DRS 215.435(1) is September 15,2010. The County set a public hearing for Monday, July 19, 2010 pursuant to the lUBA remand order. The Planning Division mailed notice of the public hearing to all parties to the prior proceedings. The hearing was held before the Board. The Board left the written record open for all parties to July 23, 2010, and gave the applicant until July 28, 2010 for rebuttal. Prior to the hearing letters were received from William Arras and Jeffrey Gray. At the hearing letters were received from Frankie Watson and Tammie and Clay Walker (the Walker letter was submitted into the record by Susan Gray). After the hearing, letters were received from Minerva Soucie, and Keith and Janet Nash. The Board of County Commissioners then announced its decision approving the plan amendment and zone change on August 4, 2010. The Board hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to the assignments of error that were sustained by lUBA in Walker vs. Deschutes County. et al.: 1. Evans Well Ranch. In the 2008-189 case, lUBA concluded as follows: .......... The County's failure to appreciate that there are Evans Well Ranch grazing allotments in the vicinity other than the adjacent 4O-acre allotment, such as the Flat Pasture area with its water source, means that the county's determination regarding the size of the impact area is flawed. Remand is necessary for the county to consider all relevant evidence regarding all Evans Well Ranch grazing allotments that are in the vicinity and potentially affected by the proposed mining operation, and to determine the size of the impact area based on whether ·factual information indicates significant potential conflicts· with grazing on those allotments.» Additionally, at the hearing, Petitioners speculated that if mining operatiOns impacted sensitive grouse populations, the Bureau of land Management (BlM) could restrict grazing on the ranchers' allotments in the area. The Board concludes that there will be no significant potential conflict with the Evans Well Ranch or its grazing allotments on the BlM property adjacent to the proposed mining site, including the Flat Pasture grazing allotment west of the proposed mining site. The Board finds that the written report and oral testimony submitted by Roger Borine, the applicant's consultant, sufficiently demonstrates that the proposed mining operation, including blasting, will not impact to any great extent the cattle grazing on the Flat Pasture allotment,1 or that other impacts of the proposed mining would cause caWe on that allotment to abandon the Flat Pasture and instead graze more heavily on privately owned pastures on the ranch itself, outside the impact area. The Borine agricultural report has the following conclusions on page 6 of the report: 1 The report by Roger Borlne indicates the Flat Pasture allotment is approximately 5,010 acres in size (or 7.3 square miles). Page 2 of 6 -DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PA-04-8, ZC-04-6 -DC Document No. 2010-570 "The Flat Pasture is detennined to be the -impact area." It is the only pasture in the Horse Ridge Allotment that shares a common boundary with the SWM (Spencer Wells Mine) and Is approximately 5,010 acres or 7.3 square miles in size. The five remaining pastures are over two air miles from the Spencer Well Mine. The optimal period for grezing annual and perennial grasses by livestock near the Spencer Well Mine is in late March, April, May and early June. Mining operations will occur during the months of November-February. No ranching management practices in the northeast portion of the impact area were identified to attract and evenly distribute cattle and promote proper plant utilization. The occurrence of cattle near the Spencer Well Mine while in operation would be highly unlikely and only incidental. Blasting and crushing operations are well within existing decibel levels now occurring within the impact area. ItAII relevant evidence ....• to the impact area that may impact a ranching operation, and specffically the mining operation, was identffied and assessed for its potential impact. This analysis detenn/ned and supports the conclusion that the Spencer Well Mine will not impact the Evans Well Ranch operations. It addition, the Spencer Well Mine will not create noise or disturbance over and above already existing conditions on the cattle and the cattle operation. " The Board finds that the Borine report is sufficient evidence that no significant impacts of the mine will reach the remaining pastures and that there will not be an impact from the mine on either the ranch itself, or on any of the related grazing allotments on the BLM land in the vicinity of the mine. Despite the Nashes stating in their letter that the actual graze runs longer, the Board finds the statement by Mr. Borine that the allotment is currently not for that longer time period to be credible. Given that the mining operations will occur during the months of November-February, the Board finds that the timing of allotted grazing on BLM land versus the mining operations, significantly minimizes, if not eliminates, the impacts between the grazing and the mining operations. Therefore, the original one-half mile impact area chosen by the Board is still the appropriate impact area. As a result, the Board finds the testimony and report by Mr. Borine to be more persuasive than the Nash's comments as to the potential impact to cattle grazing in the area, and specifically on the Flat Pasture Allotment. Based upon the size of the Evans Wells Ranch BlM grazing allotment, the location of the grazing allotment, and the evidence from a similar mining site. the Board concludes that the proposed mining would not result in a Msignificant potential conflict" with respect to the Evans Wells Ranch grazing allotment and the operation of the ranch. The Board also reiterates and incorporates by reference herein its findings in the prior decisions on this same application. Those decisions include findings on conflicts between mining operations and agricultural activities as follows: "The Board concludes that the proposed use is separated from the BlM allotment by the Spencer Wells Road. The Board concludes the proposed use will not force a significant change in accepted farming practices in the area. The proposed use will not significantly increase the cost of these accepted farm practices. The existing Spencer Wells Road and the buffering would minimize any conflicts to these agricultural practices.· Page 3 of 6 -DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNlY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PA-04-8, ZC-04-6 -DC Document No. 2010-570 The Board will require that the applicant coordinate the proposed blasting operations with the Evans Well Ranch grazing allotments, specifically for grazing occurring within one-hatf mile of the mining site. The purpose being to reduce any conflicts with cattle grazing on the Flat Pasture area within on&-hatf mile of the mine. The Board finds that the issues raised in the Arras, Watson, Gray. and Soucie letters have been previously addressed in the Board's prior decisions, and need not be repeated here because those issues were raised on appeal to LUBA by the Walkers and LUBA denied those assignments of error, and those denials were not appealed. Those denied issues cannot be addressed again in this decision. IV. CONCLUSION: The Board hereby approves the plan amendment and zone change in File No. PA-Q4..8 and ZC-04-6, subject to the following: 1. The Applicant must meet the general operation standards set forth DCC Section 18.52.110. See Exhibit ",.. to the application submittal. 2. The Applicant shall conduct the following mitigation: a. "Blasting and crushing will cease during periods of severe winter weather conditions that may force antelope with no aHemative winter range into the area adjacent to the rock pit. b. The applicant will allow the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife District Biologist (ODFWDB) onsite to monitor severe winter conditions based on snow depth. temperature, and numbers of antelope within 2 miles of the rock pit. c. Upon ODFWDB notification to the applicant when cessation of crushing and blasting is deemed necessary by the ODFWDB due to antelope winter range conditions, the application will cease blasting and crushing as necessary within 24 hrs. of the ODFWDB notice d. The applicant may choose to remove crushing eqUipment if crushinglblasting cessation is necessary, and this removal will take up to two weeks from the date of notice of cessation." 3. Any fencing of the project must be wildlife friendly fencing that would allow an antelope to pass under the fence with as little risk as possible and must be approved by ODF&W. a. The fencing shall be a three wire smooth wire fence or better with at least 18 inches from the ground to the bottom wire. b. There would be a maximum of 42 inches from the ground to the top wire. 4. The reclamation plan will include replanting with native grasses and shrubs. a. Each year, the Applicant must treat any noxious weeds that might invade the site work. b. The Applicant must work with the Deschutes County Weed Board and adhere to the Weed Board's requirements for eradication of noxious weeds. 5. A 600-foot setback shall be maintained along U.S. Highway 20, the entire length of the project. a. All mining activities shall be set back 200-fool from Deschutes County Road No. 23. Page 4 of 6 -DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PA-04-8, ZC-04-6 -DC Document No. 2010-570 b. A natural area and buffer of between 100 foot and 250 feet shall be maintained along the south and east sides of the property. 6. All access roads into the property shall be asphalt, and all internal roads shall be paved up to the mining site. 7. Any structures on the property shall be limited to a truck scale, scale control building and well head building. 8. Prior to any mining activities, the applicant shall acquire a water right to provide a pond and water storage, with a pump, to provide for dust control during the excavation and processing of materials on-site, and the water shall be used to provide dust control during the excavation and processing of materials. 9. Beginning with the second stage of mining. the on-site crushing shall occur below grade. 10. Any berms to be located on the property shall: a. not exceed 15 feet in height, b. shall be used to store material for future reclamation, and c. shall be sprinkled with water to reduce dust. 11. Any utility lines on the property shall be underground utility lines. 12. No mining or excavation shan occur within the designated flood plain unless otherwise approved through a conditional use permit process. 13. The property will be reclaimed in its natural state in accordance with an operating and reclamation plan to be approved by DOGAMI. See Exhibit -H-to the application submittal, incorporated by reference herein. 14. Applicant shall comply with the regulations adopted by the Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Department of Interior, in order to determine the allowable particle velocity per foot for a residence. a. In addition, the Applicant's first shots will be kept small and monitored with a seismic device that reads particle velocity per foot. b. The Applicant will place the monitoring device off of the 4-R property line adjacent to U.S. Highway 20. c. Once Applicant has the seismic information on the initial blast. Applicant can adjust the blasts accordingly to insure that Applicant stays within these standards. 15. All lighting on the property shall conform to the lighting codes of the County and such lighting must be contained on the property. 16. Applicant shall restrict the access to the property to one road. 17. Based upon the Technical Memorandum prepared by William C.B. Gates, Ph.D .• P,E .• C.E.G. of KJeinfelderWest.lnc. dated January 4, 2008, the Applicant shall install monitOring points at key areas around the mine site be required to monitor vibrations during blasting operations to insure that ground vibrations are within the safe limits established by the Office of Surface Mining; and, Page 5 of 6 -DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PA-04-8, ZC-04-6 -DC Document No. 2010-570 18. Based upon the anemometer data collected by Kleinfelder, blasting will occur when the prevailing wind is blowing away from the Walker residence. 19. Based upon the discussions that some religious or cultural activities might have occurred in the past on the Walker residence, and based upon the Applicant's willingness to restrict certain activities on its property during any such religious or cultural activities, the Applicant shall restrict its blasting activities, upon prior written notification, of any cultural or religious activities that will occur on the Walker property. Any such restriction, however, shall not exceed three (3) days in duration. 20. The applicant shall coordinate blasting activities with the owner of the Evans Well Ranch, so that the grazing of cattle does not take place within one-half mile of the surface mining zone during blasting operations. /1" .-:..Dated this / <.t} of )s..?f...4t,t... ,2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I / 7' .., ".' ~ /'~;L~Kr]i;;···· DATED this ." (' ,-" ALAN UNGER, VICE CHAIR /···········\·~/l:.. '.' ; , .......···-\;1 <::7\""-'V>"-··t Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, COMMISSIONER Page 6 of 6 -DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PA-D4-8. ZC-04-6-DC Document No. 2010-570 {06829091-00495779;1} 4-R EQUIPMENT, LLC / PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE MATRIX PA-04-8 / ZC-04-8 (LUBA No. 2010-082 on REMAND) The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has directed Deschutes County to: (1) either analyze an expanded impact area that includes the “Flat Pasture” or to identify substantial evidence in the record that supports its decision to limit the impact area to one-half mile from the proposed mine, and (2) to evaluate any conflicts with the agricultural operations of property owned by Petitioner within the impact area. Issue Board Options Information in Record Staff Comment 1. Should the impact analysis area be limited to one-half mile from the proposed mine or expanded to include sage grouse leks outside of the one-half mile analysis area? a. The Board previously decided not to expand the analysis area to include distant sage grouse leks. LUBA affirmed this finding. The issue is no long available for review. 1. The nearest lek is approximately 1.19 miles from the proposed mine This finding is only included to show that the sage grouse issue has previously been addressed, and is not a part of this proceeding. 2. Should the impact analysis area be limited to one-half mile from the proposed mine or expanded to include the entire “Flat Pasture” because of a potential conflicts with agricultural operations occurring on the Flat Pasture? a. The Board can find that evidence exists in the Record to support using the standard one-half mile impact analysis area. b. The Board can find the evidence in the Record supports expanding the impact analysis area to include the entire “Flat Pasture” 1. The Flat Pasture is 5,010 acres or 7.3 square miles; it is separated from the proposed mine by a 200 ft. setback and a paved road; grazing is permitted from November 1 to December 15. 2. Prior argument from Keith and Janet Nash (former holders of Flat Pasture grazing allotment): mining will cause sage grouse to relocate to active grazing areas, which will cause BLM to curtail grazing rights outside of half-mile; noises from mining will disturb cattle 3. Roger Borine letter: mining noises not louder than other noises in the area (gunshots) and dissipate to near ambient noise levels at 1,500 ft.; generally no affects on cattle at likely distances as grazing primarily occurs in southwest portion of the Flat Pasture (not near the mine) because that is where water is available and use of hay is permitted; if sage grouse were to migrate it would likely not be to southwest corner of Flat Pasture 4. Stephen Roth letter: has not found a conflict with past experiences raising cattle in proximity to mining operations; current holder of the Flat Pasture grazing allotment. 5. BLM letter: takes no position on the Borine letter or whether the mine would lead to a curtailment of grazing rights. 6. LUBA remand opinion said that Nash argument is based on “several levels of speculative causation” but required County to address the argument. Staff believes that the one-half mile impact analysis area was and is sufficient to determine any potential conflicts with agricultural operations on the Flat Pasture. {06829091-00495779;1} Issue Board Options Information in Record Staff Comment 3. Does the evidence in the Record support the Board finding that the proposed Zone Change will not have any negative impacts on agricultural operations within one-half mile? a. The Board can find that evidence exists in the Record that no negative impacts will occur on agricultural operations within one half mile of the proposed mine. b. The Board can find the evidence in the Record reveals a conflict with agricultural operations within one-half mile of the proposed mine. a. If a conflict is found, County must identify “reasonable and practicable” measures to mitigate conflict. 1. Prior argument from Keith and Janet Nash (former holders of Flat Pasture grazing allotment): mining will cause sage grouse to relocate to active grazing areas within one-half mile of proposed mine, which will cause BLM to curtail grazing rights inside of half-mile; noises from mining will disturb cattle within one-half mile 2. Roger Borine letter: same arguments as issue #2 above; generally no affects on cattle at likely distances; noise levels will decrease over time as blasting will occur at lower depths; prior reductions in grazing rights were self imposed by the Nashs; sage grouse would not likely migrate to southwest portion of Flat Pasture (where cattle are most likely to be) therefore BLM not likely to curtail grazing rights. 3. Stephen Roth letter: has not found a conflict with past experiences raising cattle in proximity to mining operations; has an agreement to graze cattle on buffer land owned by Applicant; current holder of Flat Pasture grazing allotment. 4. BLM letter that takes no position on the Borine letter or whether the mine would lead to a curtailment of grazing rights. 5. LUBA indicated that finding a conflict with agricultural practices based on potential sage grouse impacts “relies on several levels of speculative causation.” (LUBA No. 2010-082, p.11) 4. Should there be further conditions regarding timing of operations? a. Board can find existing conditions are sufficient. b. Board can find conflicts with agricultural operations require further conditions. 1. Board established 20 conditions of approval including: a. Limits on blasting in severe winter weather due to antelope winter range conditions and when religious or cultural activities occur at Walker property b. Monitoring of vibrations and prevailing winds c. Coordination with cattle grazing time periods. 2. Applicant indicates blasting would typically occur in winter months due to availability of workers and fewer conflicts due to spring/summer/fall activities. 3. Stephen Roth letter states no conflicts in past experiences grazing cattle in close proximity to all forms of mining operations. The only limitation listed in the Board’s last decision on mining was ceasing of blasting and crushing during periods of severe winter weather. The applicant has indicated that the mining site would be utilized year round. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING OPENING PROCESS: 1. CHAIR: "This is the time and place set for hearing on a lUBA Remand of application nos. PA-04-8 and ZC-04-6." (lUBA No. 2010-082) 2. CHAIR to COD staff: "Staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed." 3. COD STAFF informs the audience as follows: • The Board of County Commissioners will take testimony and receive written evidence concerning Plan Amendment and Zone Change, PA-04-8 and ZC-04-6, and the two issues remanded by lUBA to the County. The property is located at the intersection of Highway 20 and Spencer Wells Road, west of Millican, and is identified on County Assessor's Map 19-15, as tax lots 902, 1000 and 1001. • The applicant is requesting approval of a Plan Amendment to add the subject property to the County's GoalS surface mining inventory of mineral and aggregate resources, and a Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use -Horse Ridge subzone (EFU-HR) to Surface Mining (SM). These applications were previously considered and approved by the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") by the written decision dated September 1, 2010. That decision was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"), which remanded the decision back to the County. • All testimony shall be directed to the Board • At the conclusion of this hearing the Board will deliberate towards a decision or continue the hearing or deliberations to a date and time certain • The hearing will proceed as follows: o staff will provide a brief report o the applicant will present its testimony and evidence o the opponent (and/or proponent) will present its testimony and evidence o any other interested persons will then present testimony or evidence o the applicant, as the party bearing the burden of proof, will then be afforded an opportunity to present rebuttal testimony o if requested by the Board, staff will proVide closing comments 4. COD STAFF: itA full written version of the hearing procedures is available at the table at the side ofthe room." 5. COD STAFF: "Commissioners must disclose any ex-parte contacts, prior hearing observations, biases, or conflicts of interest. Does any Commissioner have anything to disclose and, if so, please state the nature of same and whether you can proceed?" 6. BOARD: The Board members will need to disclose conflicts or any ex-parte contacts and state whether they are withdrawing from the hearing or whether they intend to continue with the hearing. "Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner (member of the hearings body) based on ex-parte contacts, biases, or conflicts?" 7. CHAIR: open the hearing and direct staff to proceed with brief staff report. I I ! I I f i I r I Bonnie Baker From: tamm iew@mtaonline.net Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 7:33 PM To: Board Cc: Paul Blikstad Subject: file numbers: PA-04-8, ZC-04-6, hearing scheduled 10-12-2014 Importance: High Good evening: I received the notice of Public Hearing scheduled for Wednesday, November 12, 2014 for the above listed file numbers. I would like to formally request that the hearing be left open for 10 days for additional testimony. Please let me know as soon as possible. My husband, Clay and I have the home across the highway from the proposed surface mine and would like some additional time to compile some data and information. Respectfully, Tammie and Clay Walker PO Box 871124 Wasilla, AK 99687 tammiew@mtaonline.net Property address: 26730 Highway 20 E Bend, OR 97701 1 SW SL. 4 ! fiend. OR 97702OREGON ~'hone (541) 647·2930 www.centra1oregonlandwatch.orgLANDWATCH November 12, 2014 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 Re: Remand of Nash v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 2010-082 Deschutes County Planning File Nos. P A-04-08 and ZC-04-06 Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch in opposition to the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The Applicant's burden of proof on remand does not sustain its burden of proof or answer LUBA's remand direction. The Borine and Roth letters do not constitute adequate evidence on the effect of development and full operation of the Spencer Wells Mine on livestock and ranching operations. As addressed in the BLM letter responding to the Borine letter, an effects analysis has to address the most recent sage­ grouse population and habitat data available. This is because of the proximity of sage-grouse habitat to the property, the declining use of the closest lek, and a connection between mining and grazing that would be considered in a NEP A cumulative effects analysis. The impacts of the proposed mining operation could be such that the BLM will have to curtail use of the Flat Pasture to avoid negative cumulative effects on sage-grouse. Mr. Borine offers opinions on impacts to sage-grouse for which he is not qualified to make, such as on "the amount of forage available for sage-grouse." He also incorrectly assumes, without foundation, that a previous BLM decision retaining historic grazing levels "contemplated sage­ grouse issues." That is not what the recent BLM letter states. In fact, the BLM is in the process of using the most recent science to develop proposed management actions. The Applicant has not sustained its burden of proof on the remand issue identified by LUBA: "On remand, the county should consider ...effects of the proposed mine on sage­ grouse that winter in the impact area and the possibility that such effects could lead to a reduction in lands available for grazing." (LUBA Slip Op. p. 11) LUBA also identified the issue as "whether the proposed mine would cause sage-grouse to abandon the area." 2 Not only should Flat Pasture be included in the impact area, but so should the two sage-grouse leks identified by the BLM. As sage-grouse approach being listed next year, the BLM is doing an EIS and the State of Oregon is trying to impress on US Fish and Wildlife Service that there is no need for a listing because of Oregon's rigorous land use system. In this context, where it has been three and a half years since the latest remand and eight years since the original Goal 5 analysis was done, the County should require an updating of its Goal 5 analysis on impacts to and protection of sage-grouse. The County Board of Commissioners has the authority on remand to reopen Goal 5 issues and should do so here. Very truly yours, r-J~'V......o 'i -<"1 Paul Dewey, Executive Director ')0 SIN Bond St.. <t I BH'CI OR 91 (51, 1) 647~2930 www.centraloregonlandwatch.org I \ ~, : Bonnie Baker From: Tom Anderson Sent: Thursday, November 06,20142:24 PM To: Paul Blikstad; Nick Lelack; Laurie Craghead Subject: Fwd: Millican Mining Proposal Input Attachments: Copy of 94(1 )22-34AdamsGeoVarinJoccidentalisleafoils.pdf; ATT00001.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Mark Corbet" <mcorbet97756@gmail.com> To: "Board" <board@co.deschutes.or.us> Subject: Millican Mining Proposal Input Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, The proposed mining operation on private lands near Millican Oregon appears to be at ground zero of a recentl y identified new variation of western juniper. The new variation was sampled and evaluated by Dr. Robert Adams of Baylor University, the author of several books on junipers of the world. I have attached a copy of study of the new tree, in fact more of a shrub. Take particular note of the contour type map and it's tiny peak right where the proposed mining site is. It should also be pointed out that the exact range of this new variation has yet to be determined as too few samples have been gathered. It may only exist in the little draw south ofthe highway and be in danger or it may extend far beyond that location. I hope to attend the Nov. 12 board meeting. Should anyone from your office care to learn more about this subject or speak with me, you may contact me bye-mail or call 541 280-8076. I have spent some time visually surveying the area and believe I have found some distinguishing characteristics of this plant that will help determine its full range. Thank you. Mark Corbet Redmond, Oregon 1 SYNOPSIS OF REPORT BY DR. ROBERT P. ADAMS Published in PHYTOLOGIA (April 2012) Entitled JUNIPERUS OCCIDENTALIS FORMA CORBETII R. P. ADAMS A NEW SHRUBBY VARIANT: GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN LEAF ESSENTIAL OILS The purpose of this paper is to report on geographic variation in the leaf essential oil of 1. occidentalis. Juniperus occidentalis is a narrowly distributed species, growing largely east of the Cascade Mts. and thence into California. Recently, a shrubby for of J. occidentalis was discovered east of Bend, OR. Careful field examination revealed that the shrubs are not just damaged (browsed, winter kill etc.) but differ from typical 1. occidentalis that have a strong central axis. Overall, the leaf essential oils of populations of J. occidentalis were found to be rather uniform except for the populations at the extremity of the range and for the shrubby form east of Bend. The shrubs of 1. occidentalis, 32 km east of Bend, OR on hwy 20 appear to form a natural population that is reproducing itself. Due to the apparent differences in their habit from the normal 1. occidentalis trees and their genetic differences in the expression of terpenoids, the shrubby junipers are worthy of recognition as a new forma: I Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) 22 l JUNIPERUS OCCIDENTALIS FORMA CORBETIIR. P. ADAMS, A NEW SHRUBBY VARIANT: GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN LEAF ESSENTIAL OILS Robert P. Adams I Biology Department, Baylor University, Box 97388, Waco, TX 76798, USA email Robert _Adams@baylor.edu ABSTRACT It The volatile leaf oils of J. occidentalis were analyzed from throughout its range. The major differentiation found was the divergence of the Y oUa Bolly population and the shrubby form that occurs about 30 km east of Bend, OR. The shrubby taxon is distinct in its habit and terpenes having large amounts of p-cymene (20.0) and bornyl acetate (24.5%). A new forma is named in honor of its discoverer: Juniperus occidentalis forma corbetii R. P. Adams, forma nov. Phytologia 94(1): 22-33 (April 2, 2012). KEY WORDS: Juniperus occidentalis, Juniperus occidentalis var. corbetii R. P. Adams, forma nov., J. grandis, Cupressaceae, terpenes, geographic variation. Juniperus occidentalis, J. grandis (=J. occidentalis var. australis and J. osteosperma are three very closely related t junipers in the western United States (Vasek, 1966, Adams, 201l). Although Adams and Kauffmann (201Oa) and Adams (2012) reported on the compositions of the leaf oil of J. occidentalis, and hybridization with J. grandts, no extensive analysis of geographic variation in the leaf essential oils was reported. Juniperus occidentalis is a I narrowly distributed species, growing largely east of the Cascade Mtns. and thence into nw California (Fig. I). I Recently, a shrubby form of J. occidentalis was discovered east of Bend, OR (Fig. 2). Careful field examination I trevealed that these shrubs are not just damaged (browsed, winter killed, etc.), but differ from the typical J. occidentalis that have a strong central axis. Thus, it seemed opportune to include this unusual population in this study of geographical variation. Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) 23 (MATERIALS AND METHODS Plant material: J. grandis, Adams 11963-11967, Jet. US 50 & CA 89,38° 51.086N, 120" 01.244'W, 1937 m, Meyers, EI Dorado Co.; CA; Adams 11968-11972,16 km w of Sonora Jct., on CA Hwy. 108,38" 18.289'N, 111 0 35.598'W, 2585 m, Tuolumne Co.; CA. J. occidentalis, Adams 1l940-1l942, 12 km e oOct. WA 14 & US 97 on WA 14,45° 44.392'N, 120° 41.207'W, 170 m, Klickitat Co.; W A, Adams 11943-11945, 2 km s of jct. US 97 & US 197 on US 97, 38 km ne of Madras, OR; 44" 53.676'N, 120" 56.l31'W, 951 m, Wasco Co., OR; Adams 1l946-1l948, 3 km sw of Bend, OR; on OR 372, 44° 02.390'N, 121° 20.054'W, 1132 m, Deschutes Co., OR; Adams 11949-11951, 32 km e of Bend, OR on OR 20, shrubs, 0.5 -1m tall, 43° 53.922'N, 120" 59.l87'W, 1274 m, Deschutes Co., OR; Adams 1l952-11954, 14 km e of Jct. OR66 & 15, on OR66, 42" 08.044'N, 122" 34.l30'W, 701 m, Jackson Co., OR; Adams 11957-1/959, on CA299, 10 km e of McArthur, CA, 41" 05.313'N, 121" 18.921'W, 1091 m, Lassen Co., CA; Adams 1l995-1l998 (Kauffmann AI-A3, Bl), Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness, 40" 06' 34"N, 122" 57' 59W, 1815-2000 m, Trinity Co., CA, Adams 12342-12346, 19 km WSE of Susanville, CA, on CA 36, 40" 22.178'N, 120" 50.211' W, 1570 m, Lassen Co., CA, Adams 12347-12351, on US 395, 5 km n of Madeline, 41° 05.867'N, 120° 28.456' W, 1695 m, Lassen Co., CA. Voucher specimens are deposited in the Herbarium, Baylor University (BAYLU). Isolation of Oils -Fresh leaves (200 g) were steam distilled for 2 h using a circulatory Clevenger-type apparatus (Adams, 1991). The oil samples were concentrated (ether trap removed) with nitrogen and the samples stored at ­ 20"C until analyzed. The extracted leaves were oven dried (100°C, 48 h) for determination of oil yields. Chemical Analyses -Oils from 10-15 trees of each of the taxa were analyzed and average values reported. The oils were analyzed on a HP5971 MSD mass spectrometer, scan time 11 sec., directly coupled Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) 25 I I 1 ! ,f f to a HP 5890 gas chromatograph, using a J & W DB-5, 0.26 mm x 30 m, 0.25 micron coating thickness, fused silica capillary column (see 5 for operating details). Identifications were made by library searches of our volatile oil library (Adams, 2007), using the HP Chemstation library search routines, coupled with retention time data of authentic reference compounds. Quantitation was by FID on an HP 5890 gas chromatograph using a J & W DB-5, 0.26 mm x 30 m, 0.25 micron coating thickness, fused silica capillary column using the HP Chemstation software. Data Analysis -Terpenoids (as per cent total oil) were coded and compared among the species by the Gower metric (1971). Principal coordinate analysis was performed by factoring the associational matrix using the formulation of Gower (1966) and Veldman (1967). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The volatile leaf oil of J. occidentalis is dominated by sabinene, p-cymene, citronellol and bornyl acetate (Table 1). The leaf oil from the Yolla Bolly population is atypical in having more sabinene (20.4%), with a few compounds in common with J. grandis from Big Bear (verbenene, unknown 1389, Table 1). The shrubs east of Bend, OR have large amounts ofp-cymene (20.0) and bornyl acetate (24.5%). Principal coordinates analysis using 42 terpenoids resulted in eigenroots that accounted for 22, 15 and 15% of the variance. Ordination of the populations shows coordinate 1 separates the Y olla Bolly population from the other I ipopulations (Fig. 3). The shrubs east of Bend are clearly separated (Fig. 3). Contoured clustering shows (FIg. 4) the sharp differentiation between the typical pyramidal trees at Bend and the shrubs east of Bend and the divergence of the Yolla Bolly (YB) population, joining last at a 0.670 similarity. Small amounts of differentiation is seen on the margins of the central region at Susanville, CA (Sv), Ashland, OR (As) and to a larger degree, the Klickitat, WA (Kw) population (Fig. 4). The oils of J. occidentalis appear to be very uniform throughout its range in eastern Oregon (Fig. 4). Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) 26 Overall, the leaf essential oils of populations of J. occidentalis were found to be rather uniform except for the I populations at the extremity of the range, and for the shrubby form east of Bend. I I ! J f I i I I i ,t , I Figure 4. Contoured clustering based on 42 terpenes. See Fig. 3 for population identities. Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) WA Contoured Clustering 42 terpenes OR NV 28L-~~==:d~~~==~~____~~________________~ .670 11949 Juniperus occidentalis forma corbetii R. P. Adams, forma nov. TYPE: United States, Oregon, Deschutes Co., 32 km e of Bend, OR on OR 20, shrubs, 0.5 1m tall, 43° 53.922'N, 1200 59. 1 87'W, 1274 m, OR; 4 Aug 2009, Adams (HOLOTYPE: BAYLU, TOPOTYPES: Adams 11950, 11951, BAYLU), Fig. 6. Junipero occidentali similis sed differt habitu fruticoso et foliis confertim dispositis. Similar to Juniperus occidentalis but differing habit, being a shrub with compact foliage. The typical variety with a strong central axis and pyramidal crown grows on a nearby hillside, whereas f. corbetii grows along a dry wash on a mix of lava and sand. No female cones were found in this population. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Mark Corbet for sharing his discovery of this new shrub form with me and assistance in the field. Thanks to Guy Nesom for providing the Latin description. Thanks to Tonya Yanke for lab assistance. This research was supported in part with funds from Baylor University. LITERATURE CITED Adams, R. P. 1982. A comparison of multivariate methods for the detection of hybridization. Taxon 31: 646-661. Adams, R. P. 1991. Cedarwood oil-Analysis and properties. pp. 159-173. in: Modern Methods of Plant Analysis, New Series: Oil and Waxes. H.-F. Linskens and J. F. Jackson, eds. Springler-Verlag, Berlin. Adams, R. P. 2007. Identification of essential oil components by gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry. 2nd ed. Allured Publ., Carol Stream, IL. Adams, R. P. 2012. Geographic variation in the leaf essential oils of Juniperus grandis (Cupressaceae) II. Phytologia 94: 3-21. Adams, R. P. and M. E. Kaufmann. 20 lOa. Geographic variation in the leaf essential oils of Juniperus grandis and comparison withJ. occidentalis andJ. osteosperma. Phytologia 92: 167-185. Adams, R. P. and M. E. Kauffmann. 20 lOb. Geographic variation in nrDNA and cp DNA ofJuniperus californica, J. grandis, J. occidentalis and J. osteosperma (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 92: 266-276. Gower, 1. C. 1966. Some distance properties oflatent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53: 326-338. Gower,1. C. 1971. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27: 857-874. Terry, R. G. 2010. Re-evaluation of morphological and chloroplast DNA variation in Juniperus osteosperma Hook and J. occidentalis Torr. Little (Cupressaceae) and their putative hybrids. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 38: 349-360. Terry, R. G., R. S. Novak and R. J. Tausch. 2000. Genetic variation in chloroplast and nuclear ribosomal DNA in Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma (Cupressaceae): Evidence for interspecific gene flow. Am. 1. Bot. 87: 250­ 258. f Vasek, F. C. 1966. The distribution and taxonomy of three western junipers. Brittonia 18: 350-372. Veldman D. J. 1967. Fortran programming for the behavioral sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Publ., NY. ! I I I I I I JUNIPERUS OCCIDENTALIS, V AR. CORBETII, ORIGINAL SAMPLE TAKEN HERE BY DR. ROBERT ADAMS, PROFESSOR AT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY JUNIPERUS OCCEDENTALIS V AR. CORBETII APPROX. TWO FEET TALL ESTIMATED AGE 80 YEARS 22 Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) JUNIPERUS OCCIDENTALIS FORMA CORBETIIR. P. ADAMS, A NEW SHRUBBY VARIANT: GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN LEAF ESSENTIAL OILS Robert P. Adams Biology Department, Baylor University, Box 97388, Waco, TX 76798, USA email Robert_Adams@baylor.edu ABSTRACT The volatile leaf oils of J. occidentalis were analyzed from throughout its range. The major differentiation found was the divergence of the Y olla Bolly population and the shrubby form that occurs about 30 km east of Bend, OR. The shrubby taxon is distinct in its habit and terpenes having large amounts of p-cymene (20.0) and bornyl acetate (24.5%). A new forma is named in honor of its discoverer: Juniperus occidentalis forma corbetii R. P. Adams, forma nov. Phytologia 94(1): 22-33 (April 2, 2012). KEY WORDS: Juniperus occidentalis, Juniperus occidentalis var. corbetii R. P. Adams, forma nov., J. grandis, Cupressaceae, terpenes, geographic variation. Juniperus occidentalis, J. grandis occidentalis var. australis and J. osteosperma are three very closely related junipers in the western United States (Vasek, 1966, Adams, 2011). Although Adams and Kauffinann (201Oa) and Adams (2012) reported on the compositions of the leaf oil of J. occidentalis, and hybridization with J. grandis, no extensive analysis of geographic variation in the leaf essential oils was reported. Juniperus occidentalis is a narrowly distributed species, growing largely east of the Cascade Mtns. and thence into nw California (Fig. I). Recently, a shrubby form of J. occidentalis was discovered east of Bend, OR (Fig. 2). Careful field examination revealed that these shrubs are not just damaged (browsed, winter killed, etc.), but differ from the typical J. occidentalis that have a strong central axis. Thus, it seemed opportune to include this unusual population in this study of geographical variation. 23 Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) 10 NV J . occidentalis Figure 1. Distribution of J occidentalis modified from Vasek (1966) and Adams (2011) showing sampled areas (dots ). Note the southwestern-most population at Yolla Bolly (Trinity Alps, CA). Figure 2. Mark Corbet with a shrubby form of J occidentalis, 32 km east of Bend, OR (cf. Adams 11949-11951). 22 Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) JUNIPERUS OCCIDENTALIS FORMA CORBETIIR. P. ADAMS, A NEW SHRUBBY VARIANT: GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN LEAF ESSENTIAL OILS Robert P. Adams Biology Department, Baylor University, Box 97388, Waco, TX 76798, USA email Robert_ Adams@baylor.edu ABSTRACT The volatile leaf oils of J occidentalis were analyzed from throughout its range. The major differentiation found was the divergence of the Y olIa Bolly population and the shrubby fonn that occurs about 30 km east of Bend, OR. The shrubby taxon is distinct in its habit and terpenes having large amounts of p-cymene (20.0) and bornyl acetate (24.5%). A new forma is named in honor of its discoverer: Juniperus occidentalis forma corbet;; R. P. Adams, forma nov. Phytologia 94(1): 22-33 (April 2, 2012). KEY WORDS: Juniperus occidentalis, Juniperus occidentalis var. corbetii R. P. Adams, forma nov., J. grandis, Cupressaceae, terpenes, geographic variation. Juniperus occidentalis, J. grand is (=J. occidentalis var. australis and J. osteosperma are three very closely related junipers in the western United States (Vasek, 1966, Adams, 2011). Although Adams and Kauffmann (2010a) and Adams (2012) reported on the compositions of the leaf oil of J. occidentalis, and hybridization with J. grand is, no extensive analysis of geographic variation in the leaf essential oils was reported. Junipenls occidentalis is a narrowly distributed species, growing largely east of the Cascade Mtns. and thence into nw California (Fig. 1). Recently, a shrubby form of J. occidentalis was discovered east of Bend, OR (Fig. 2). Careful field examination revealed that these shrubs are not just damaged (browsed, winter killed, etc.), but differ from the typical J occidentalis that have a strong central axis. Thus, it seemed opportune to include this unusual population in this study of geographical variation. 24 Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) The purpose this paper is to rep0l1 on geographic variation in the leaf essential oil of J ()ccidentalis. Hybridization with J osteosperma in ne California and nw Nevada (Vasek, 1966, Terry, 2010; Terry et al. 2000) is beyond the scope of this paper. MATERIALS AND METHODS Plant material: J grandis, Adams 11963-11967, Jet. US 50 & CA 89, 38° 5 L086N, 120° OL244'W, 1937 m, Meyers, El Dorado Co.; CA; Adams 11968-11972, 16 km w of Sonora Jct., on CA Hwy. 108, 38° 18.289'N, 111° 35.598'W, 2585 m, Tuolumne Co.; CA. 1. oCcidentalis, Adams 11940-11942, 12 km e of Jct. WA 14 & US 97 on WA 14, 45° 44.392'N, 120° 4L207'W, 170 m, Klickitat Co.; WA, Adams 11943-11945,2 km s of jet. US 97 & US 197 on US 97, 38 km ne of Madras, OR; 44° 53.676'N, 120° 56.13I'W, 951 m, Wasco Co., OR; Adams 11946-11948, 3 km sw of Bend, OR; on OR 372, 44° 02.390'N, 121° 20.054'W, 1132 m, Deschutes Co., OR; Adams 11949­ 11951, 32 km e of Bend, OR on OR 20, shrubs, 0.5 -1m tall, 43° 53.922'N, 120° 59.187'W, 1274 m, Deschutes Co., OR; Adams 11952­ 11954, 14 km e of Jet. OR66 & 15, on OR66, 42° 08.044'N, 122° 34. 130'W. 701 In, Jackson Co., OR; Adams 11957-11959, on CA299, 10 km e of McArthur, CA, 41° 05.313'N, 121° 18.921'W, 1091 m, Lassen Co., CA; Adams 11995-11998 (Kauffmann A I-A 3, B1), Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness, 40° 06' 34"N, 122° 57' 59W, 1815-2000 m, Trinity Co., CA, Adams 12342-12346, 19 km WSE of Susanville, CA, on CA 36, 40° 22. 178'N, 120° 50.211' W, 1570 m, Lassen Co., CA, Adams 12347-12351, on US 395, 5 km n of Madeline, 41° 05.867'N, 120° 28.456' W, 1695 m, Lassen Co., CA. Voucher specimens are deposited in the Herbarium, Baylor University (BA YLU). Isolation o/Oils -Fresh leaves (200 g) were steam distilled for 2 h using a circulatory Clevenger-type apparatus (Adams, 1991). The oil samples were concentrated (ether trap removed) with nitrogen and the samples stored at -20°C until analyzed. The extracted leaves were oven dried (100°C, 48 h) for determination of oil yields. Chemical Analyses -Oils from 10-15 trees of each of the taxa were analyzed and average values reported. The oils were analyzed on a HP5971 MSD mass spectrometer, scan time 11 sec., directly coupled 25 Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) to a HP 5890 gas chromatograph, using a J & W DB-5, 0.26 mm x 30 m, 0.25 micron coating thickness, fused silica capillary column (see 5 for operating details). Identifications were made by library searches of our volatile oil library (Adams, 2007), using the HP Chemstation library search routines, coupled with retention time data of authentic reference compounds. Quantitation was by FID on an HP 5890 gas chromatograph using a J & W DB-5, 0.26 mm x 30 m, 0.25 micron coating thickness, fused silica capillary column using the HP Chemstation software. Data Analysis -Terpenoids (as per cent total oil) were coded and compared among the species by the Gower metric (1971). Principal coordinate analysis was performed by factoring the associational matrix using the formulation of Gower (1966) and Veldman (1967). RESUL TS AND DISCUSSION The volatile leaf oil of J. occidentalis is dominated by sabinene, p-cymene, citronellol and bornyl acetate (Table 1). The leaf oil from the Y olla Bolly population is atypical in having more sabinene (20.4%), with a few compounds in common with J. grandis from Big Bear (verbenene, unknown 1389, Table 1). The shrubs east of Bend, OR have large amounts ofp-cymene (20.0) and bornyl.acetate (24.5%). p.~, "Pi 32 Principal coordinates analysis using 42 terpenoids resulted in eigenroots that accounted for 22, 15 and 15% of the variance. Ordination of the populations shows coordinate 1 separates the Y olla Bolly population from the other populations (Fig. 3). The shrubs east of Bend are clearly separated (Fig. 3). Contoured clustering shows (FIg. 4) the sharp differentiation between the typical pyramidal trees at Bend and the shrubs east of Bend and the divergence of the Y oUa Bolly (YB) population, joining last at a 0.670 similarity. Small amounts of differentiation is seen on the margins of the central region at Susanville, CA (Sv), Ashland, OR (As) and to a larger degree, the Klickitat, W A (K w) population (Fig. 4). The oils of J. occidentalis appear to be very uniform throughout its range in eastern Oregon (Fig. 4). Yolla Bolly Figure 3. PCO based on 42 terpenes of 10 populations of 1. occidentalis. Sv = Susanville, CA, Kw = Klickitat, WA, SH = Sage Hen Pass, CA, Ju = Juntura, OR, Mc = McArthur, CA, Ws = Wasco, OR, Bn Bend, OR, As Ashland, OR, Bs shrubs = shrubs, east of Bend, OR. Because hybridization was found in the Beckwourth, CA area (Adams, 2012), it seemed important determine if any of the 1. occidentalis populations show any evidence of increased similarity to 1. grandis. suggestive of introgression. PCO ordination between 1. occidentalis and 1. grandis shows no intermediate 1. occidentalis populations (Fig. 5), although the Yolla Bolly population shows some increased similarity to 1. grandis (as reported by Adams, 2012). Overall, the leaf essential oils of populations of 1. occidentalis were found to be rather uniform except for the populations at the extremity of the range, and for the shrubby form east of Bend. i j I ! 26 I I ! ! 2(15%) 3(15%) Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) pee 42 terpenes Bs shrubs Ws Bn As SH .1-------,.,--+--+-++--++--+-71 (22%) 5vrr 27 Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) Contoured Clustering 42 terpenes OR NV Figure 4. Contoured clustering based on 42 terpenes. See Fig. 3 for population identities. 28 Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) 2(6%) pea 57 terpenes occidentalis ~fH-------+-t+t+ft+H---:J' 1 (45%) 3(50/0) Figure 5. peo based on 57 terpenes showing clear differentiation between J. occidentalis and J. grandis. YB is the Yolla Bolly I population. I The shrubs of J. occidentalis, 32 km east of Bend, OR on hwy 20 appear to form a natural population that is reproducing itself. Due to the apparent differences in their habit from the normal J. occidentalis trees and their genetic differences in the expression of terpenoids, the shrubby junipers are worthy of recognition as a new forma: 29 Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) Juniperus occidentalis fOlma corbetii R P. Adams, forma nov. TYPE: United States, Oregon, Deschutes Co., 32 km e of Bend, OR on OR 20, shrubs, 0.5 -1m tall, 43° 53.922'N, 120° 59.187'W, 1274 m, OR; 4 Aug 2009, Adams 11949 (HOLOTYPE: BA YLU, TOPOTVPES: Adams 11950, J1951, BA YLU), Fig. 6. Junipero occidentali similis sed differt habitu fruticoso et foliis confertim dispositis. Similar to Juniperus occidentalis but differing habit, being a shrub with compact foliage. The typical variety with a strong central axis. and pyranlidal crown grows on a nearby hillside, whereas f. corbetii grows along a dry wash on a mix of lava and sand. No female cones were found in this population. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Mark Corbet for sharing his discovery of this new shrub form with me and assistance in the field. Thanks to Guy Nesom for providing the Latin description. Thanks to Tonya Yanke for lab assistance. This research was supported in part with funds from Baylor University. LITERATURE CITED Adams, R. P. 1982. A comparison of multivariate methods for the detecti on of hybridization. Taxon 31: 646-661. Adams, R. P. 1991. Cedarwood oil-Analysis and properties. pp. 159­ 173. in: Modem Methods of Plant Analysis, New Series: Oil and Waxes. H.-F. Linskens and 1. F. Jackson, eds. Springler-Verlag, Berlin. Adams, R. P. 2007. Identification of essential oil components by gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry. 2nd ed. Allured PubL, Carol Stream,IL. Adams, R. P. 2011. The junipers of the world: The genus Juniperus. 3rd ed. Trafford PubL, Victoria, Be. 30 Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) Adams, R. P. 2012. Geographic variation in the leaf essential oils of Juniperus grandis (Cupressaceae) II. Phytologia 94: 3-21. Adams, R. P. and M. E. Kaufmann. 201 Oa. Geographic variation in the leaf essential oils of Juniperus grandis and comparison with J. occidentalis and.! osteosperma. Phytologia 92: 167-185. Adams, R. P. and M. E. Kauffmann. 2010b. Geographic variation in nrDNA and cp DNA of Juniperus californica, J. grandis, J. occidentalis and.! osteosperma (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 92: 266-276. Gower, J. C. 1966. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53: 326-338. Gower, J. C. 1971. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27: 857-874. Terry, R. G. 2010. Re-evaluation of morphological and chloroplast DNA variation in Juniperus osteosperma Hook and.! occidentalis Torr. Little (Cupressaceae) and their putative hybrids. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 38: 349-360. Terry, R. G., R. S. Novak and R. J. Tausch. 2000. Genetic variation in chloroplast and nuclear ribosomal DNA in Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma (Cupressaceae): Evidence for interspecific gene flow. Am. J. Bot. 87: 250-258. Vasek, F. C. 1966. The distribution and taxonomy of three western junipers. Brittonia 18: 350-372. Veldman D. J. 1967 . Fortran programming for the behavioral sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Publ., NY. 31 Phyt%gia (April 2012) 94(1) Table 1. Leaf essential oil compositions for three populations of 1. occidentalis, (Mc Arthur, CA, shrubs, e of Bend, OR, and Y olla Bolly, Y Bol) plus 1. grandis from Big Bear, San Bernardino Mtns., CA. Compounds in boldface appear to separate taxa and were used in numerical analyses. KI Kovats Index (linear) on DB-5 column. Compositional values less than 0.1% are denoted as traces (t). Unidentified components less than 0.5% are not reported. For unknown compounds, four ions are listed, with the largest IOn underlined. 32 Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) I I I I r I I • Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) 33 I f f I r t I f I ; I I 34 Phytologia (April 2012) 94(1) I Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2014 Commissioners' Hearing Room -Administration Building -1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject ofa public hearing will NOT be included in the official record ofthat hearing. 3. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Order No. 2014-028, Accepting the Petition and Setting the Date for a Public Hearing on the Annexation of Pine Forest Development, LLC Property into the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District John Laherty, County Counsel Suggested Action: Move Board signature o/Order No. 2014-028. 4. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Order No. 2014-029, Accepting the Petition and Setting the Date for a Public Hearing on the Annexation of Pine Forest Development, LLC Property into the Four Rivers Vector Control District -John Laherty, County Counsel Suggested Action: Move Board signature o/Order No. 2014-029 Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, November 12,2014 Page 1 of5 5. A PUBLIC HEARING on a LUBA Remand on the Millican Mining Site Decision Paul Blikstad, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open public hearing and take testimony; deliberate if appropriate. CONSENT AGENDA 6. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-236, an Industrial Lease of Bare Land in the La Pine Industrial Park to Jeffrey Kaufman 7. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-528, an Intergovernmental Agreement with High Desert Education Service District regarding the Healthy Families of the High Desert Program 8. Board Signature Board Signature of Resolution No. 2014-130, Transferring Appropriations within the Public Health and Behavioral Health Funds 9. Board Signature of Resolution No. 2014-131, Transferring Appropriations in the North County Services Building Fund 10. Board Signature of Resolution No. 2014-132, Transferring Appropriations in the Sheriff s Office and Countywide Law Enforcement District # 1 Funds 11. Board Signature of a Letter Reappointing Thomas Schuchardt to the Deschutes County Dog Control Board of Supervisors, through June 30, 2016 12. Board Signature of a Letter Reappointing Bruce Barrett to the Deschutes County Budget Committee, through December 31, 2017 13. Approval of Minutes: . Business Meetings of October 27 and 29, and November 5, 2014 . Work Sessions of October 27 and 29, and November 5,2014 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 14. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of a Letter Reappointing Bruce Barrett to the Deschutes County 911 County Service District Budget Commi ttee, through December 3 1, 2017 Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 20f5 I 15. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for 1 the 9-1-1 County Service District I i I CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTYWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT DISTRICT (#1) 1 i 16. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of a Letter Reappointing Bruce Barrett to the Deschutes County Countywide Law Enforcement District Budget Committee, through December 31, 2017 17. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2014-132, Transferring Appropriations in the Sheriff's Office and Countywide Law Enforcement District # 1 Funds CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DISTRICT (#2) 18. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of a Letter Reappointing Bruce Barrett to the Deschutes County Rural Law Enforcement District Budget Committee, through December 31, 2017 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extensionl4-H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 20. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 21. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, November 12,2014 Page 3 of5 Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This eventllocation is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 388-6572, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this 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 items. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Tuesday, November 11 Most County offices will be closed to observe Veterans' Day Wednesday, November 12 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, November 13 12 noon Audit Committee Meeting Monday, November 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, November 27 Most County offices will be closed to observe Thanksgiving Friday, November 28 Most County offices will be closed (unpaid day) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 4 of5 Monday, December 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, December 2 3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting 6:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Redmond City Council, Redmond City Hall Wednesday, December 3 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Monday, December 15 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, December 16 10:00 a.m. 911 Executive Board Meeting, at 911 Thursday, December 18 7:30 a.m. Annual Meeting with Sunriver Service District Board, at Sunriver Thursday, December 25 Most County offices will be closed to observe Christmas Monday, December 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, December 31 1:30 p.m. (Tentative) Administrative Work Session Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, November 12,2014 Page 5 of5