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