HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision - 4-R Equipment - MillicanDeschutes 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 October 1, 2008
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: September 24, 2008
FROM: Paul Blikstad Department CDD Phone # 6554
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of Board Signature of a Decision on the Plan Amendment and Zone Change from
Exclusive Farm Use to Surface Mining for 4-R Equipment in Millican.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board has given oral approval for the Plan Amendment and Zone Change in Millican, and
instructed the applicant's attorney to draft a decision on the applications. The Board's decision was the
second decision on these applications, following a LUBA remand and hearing. The applicant's draft
decision was reviewed by County Legal Counsel and Planning staff.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends that the Board sign the decision as written.
ATTENDANCE: Paul Blikstad, Laurie Craghead
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
The written decision needs to be given to Planning Staff, who will mail the decision to the appropriate
parties.
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For 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
11. FINDINGS OF FACT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The Planning Division mailed notice of the public hearing
scheduled for January 18, 2005 to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property and
published a notice of the proposal in the Bend Bulletin. Hearings were held before the
Deschutes County Hearings Officer on January 18, 2005 and on April 20, 2005. On June 1,
2005, the Hearings Officer issued her recommendation. The County Board of Commissioners
held a public hearing on August 23, 2005 to consider this request. On November 2, 2005, the
Board of Commissioners ordered that the record remain open until November 30, 2005 in order
to allow the Applicant time to provide an ESEE Analysis for a one-half mile impact area. The
Board held a subsequent public hearing on December 14, 2005 for public comment on the
ESEE Analysis. The hearing was continued from December 14, 2005 to January 25, 2006. The
Board announced its decision on March 1, 2006. On June 15, 2006, applicant's legal counsel,
Mr. Robert Lovlien, submitted a letter waiving the 180 -day period without specifying a time
1 — Final Decision 6829-076 301v2.doc
period. On September 8, 2006, the County received written notice from Mr. Lovlien, saying that
Mr. Lovlien would be leaving for a two month sabbatical and requesting that the mailing of the
Board's written decision be delayed until after Mr. Lovlien returned on November 27, 2006. The
Board of County Commissioners approved the amendment and zone change by Decision dated
December 27, 2006.
The Commissioners' Decision was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals in the case of
Walker vs. Deschutes County and 4-R Equipment, LLC, LUBA No.: 2007-013. In the Walker
case, LUBA sustained all or part of the second, sixth, eighth, riirith and twelfth assignments of
error and denied the remaining assignments of error alleged by the Petitioners. The eleventh
assignment of error has not yet been resolved.
The County set a public hearing on Monday, June 2, 2008 pursuant to the LUBA remand order.
The Board of County Commissioners then announced its decision approving the plan
amendment and zone change on July 23, 2008. 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. Sage Grouse. The Board readopts its previous finding where it declined to
expand the impact area to include a sage grouse lek listed as Site No. DE0999-01 on the
County's wildlife inventory. The Commissioners had declined to expand the impact area to
include a sage grouse lek located near the subject property. The Commissioners concluded
that since the mining site is outside of the SBM (sensitive bird and mammal) Combining Zone,
and that the sage grouse site was protected by the SBM Combining Zone, that the site did not
represent a significant potential conflict requiring the expansion of the impact area. However,
LUBA, in its Decision, found as follows:
"According to Petitioners, sage grouse use of the Ieks is dependent upon flight patterns
that cross over or near the subject property, and 'factual information in the record
indicates that the mining activity may disrupt those flight patterns, which in turn may
disrupt use of the Ieks. Absent a more focused response from the County or Intervenor,
we agree with the Petitioners that the County's findings are inadequate to explain why
the County can reasonably rely on the SBM Zone to conclude that there will be no
'significant potential conflicts' with the Ieks and thus decline to expand the impact area to
include them."
In response to this finding, the Intervenor requested that Gary Hostick, a certified wildlife
biologist, review the evidence that is in the record. Mr. Hostick's report is attached hereto as
Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by reference.
Gary Hostick analyzed a map, "Figure 12. Sage Grouse Movement Patterns Identified
Through Radio -Marked Bird Locations, Prineville District, BLM, 1991 to 1993", showing sage
grouse movement patterns based on radio -marked bird locations from 1991 to1993. He
concludes that it would be erroneous to deduce that a bird flew directly through the planned rock
pit area. The map only indicates that a sage grouse was located both at the lek and at
Broadman Rim. The bird may have actually taken a different flight path or moved between two
locations via a combination of flights. The schematic map was meant to show well known
grouse behavior when female sage grouse move between nest areas and Ieks during the
nesting season, and not to indicate flight paths or patterns.
2 — Final Decision 6829-076 301v2.doc
Hostick also references the consultation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and
the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife before the Application was submitted to Deschutes
County and indicates they had no concerns about sage grouse.
It is also instructive to set out the purpose clause of the Sensitive Bird and Mammal
Habitat Combining Zone, DCC 18.90.010.
"The purpose of the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone is to insure that
sensitive habitat areas identified in the County's Goal 5 sensitive bird and mammal
inventory as critical for the survival of the northern bald eagle, great blue heron, gold
eagle, prairie falcon, osprey, great grey owl, sage grouse and Townsend's big -eared bat
are protected from the effect of the conflicting uses or activities which are not subject to
the Forest Practices Act. This object shall be achieved by implementation of the
decision resulting from the economic, social, environmental and energy analysis (ESEE)
for each inventoried sensitive habitat area."
The sensitive habitat area is site-specific for each sensitive bird or mammal location.
The sensitive area to be protected for the sage grouse lek is a radius of 1,320 feet. Here, the
proposed zone change is not within 1,320 feet from any lek.
Applicant performed a survey of habitat in the rock pit area and did not discover any
additional strut sites or evidence of nesting sites. The County has not received any additional
comments from BLM or ODF&W.
The SBM Habitat Combining Zone is designed to protect known sensitive bird sites,
including sage grouse leks.
The County Commissioners concur with the conclusions of Mr. Hostick with regard to the
issues raised regarding the sage grouse habitat. There is no evidence that sage grouse habitat
will be impacted.
ODF&W has submitted comments and has acknowledged that the mitigation proposed
by the Applicant will be sufficient to address their concerns. BLM has had repeated
opportunities to comment and has decided not to make any further comments.
2. Evans Well Ranch. The Board concludes that there will be no significant
potential conflict with the Evans Well Ranch. The Petitioners cited testimony from the owners of
the Evans Wells Ranch that their BLM grazing allotment is within the one-half mile impact area,
and that blasting and other impacts of the proposed mining could cause cattle on that allotment
to abandon that pasture and instead graze more heavily on privately owned pastures on the
ranch itself, outside the impact area. Petitioners speculated that if mining operations impacted
sensitive grouse populations, BLM could restrict grazing on the ranchers' allotments in the area.
LUBA concluded as follows:
"* * * in view of the above -noted testimony, that the proposed mining will conflict with
nearly cattle operations, the county must explain in its findings why it believes, despite
that testimony, that the proposed mining will not result in 'significant potential conflicts'
with respect to the Evans Wells Ranch."
3 — Final Decision 6829-076 301v2.doc
The Evans Wells Ranch (Nash) grazing allotment on BLM land consists of 22,285 acres.
The allotment all lies west of Spencer Wells Road and south of U.S. Highway 20. A copy of the
location of the grazing allotment is attached hereto as Exhibit "2" and incorporated herein by
reference. It is the practice of the BLM to assign a time of year and length of time for each
pasture within the grazing allotment.
One 40 -acre portion of the 22,285 -acre grazing allotment does abut the southwest
corner of the proposed mining site. The proposed mining site will be fenced, prohibiting grazing
cattle from entering into the site itself. The abutting 40 -acre portion of the grazing allotment
amounts to only Tess than one percent (1%) of the total grazing allotment for Evans Wells
Ranch. More than 22,245 acres of the grazing allotment lie outside of the impact area.
Both site visits and aerial photographs confirm that there are no irrigated pastures within
three (3) miles of the subject property. Private property borders three sides of the 40 -acre
parcel of grazing pasture. The Board relies on evidence from the Applicant, who operates a
similar mining site east of Alfalfa. That property is surrounded by a BLM grazing allotment
owned by Wayne Singhose. Mr. Singhose has a key to the Alfalfa mining site, allowing his
cattle to use the water impound, if necessary. He also uses the scale to weigh hay that he
hauls from his ranch.
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 "significant potential conflict" with respect to the Evans
Wells Ranch grazing allotment and the operation of the ranch.
3. Religious and Cultural Visits. After reviewing the evidence, the Board concludes
that there are no existing uses for the purposes of OAR 660-023-0180(5)(b)(A). The
Petitioners, in their assignment of error, cited testimony that the area around the pictograms on
the Walker property include numerous burial sites, and that tribal members visit the area to
conduct religious and cultural ceremonies honoring their ancestors. In response to this
testimony, LUBA found as follows:
"A tribal cultural resource protection specialist stated that the proposed mining
operations would destroy and area that demands quiet for tribal members that visit for
religious and cultural purposes. Absent some response from the Intervenor or the
County on this issue, we agree with the Petitioners that remand is necessary for the
County to evaluate whether such visits are 'existing uses for purposes of OAR 660-023-
0180(5)(b)(A) and if so, to evaluate alleged conflicts with those uses."
The pictograms themselves are located within 500 feet of U.S. Highway 20, which is an
east/west highway across the State of Oregon. The pictograms are located north of U.S.
Highway 20 across the highway from the proposed mining site. Furthermore, the pictograms
are 3,044 feet from the nearest point that mining would occur on the subject property.
No evidence was presented that tribal members have been visiting the pictograms on a
regular basis for religious and cultural purposes. However, there was evidence in the record of
some religious and cultural activities. The Applicant has offered to restrict any blasting activities
when it is notified that there would be a cultural or religious activity scheduled on the Walker
property. Applicant has agreed to a condition of approval accordingly. Since the Applicant has
consented to such a condition of approval, there would be no impact on these activities.
4 — Final Decision 6829-076 301v2.doc
The Board does not find that such visits are therefore "existing uses" for purposes of
OAR 660-023-0180(5)(b)(A). Furthermore, the activities that would occur on the proposed
surface mining site will not generate any more noise or disturbances than already exist with the
presence of U.S. Highway 20.
Before the Applicant submitted the application for the proposed surface mine, it had a
complete archeological survey performed on the subject site. No archeological or cultural or
religious uses were discovered on the subject property itself. Furthermore, the Applicant has
not proposed any activity within that small segment of the Dry Canyon area on the subject
property.
The Board recognizes that there are pictographs on the Walker property. However,
those cultural sites are separated from the subject property by over a 1/2 mile. As was noted in
the last public hearing, the distance is approximately equal to that from Deschutes County's
office building to Pilot Butte.
There is no evidence that there would be any impact from the proposed use on these
cultural sites. The subject property is separated from the cultural sites by US Highway 20. The
activities that occur in any one year will have no more impact than a single semi truck passing
on US Highway 20. The Applicant has demonstrated with the operation of other surface mines
that dust will not be an issue. This can be verified at the O'Neil Junction surface mine where
blasting occurs within 250 feet of the main North/South Pacific Gas Transmission Line.
Activities also occur in much shorter proximity to existing housing and agricultural uses than
what would be seen in the Millican Valley.
The Applicant points out that the Millican Valley has been severely impacted by off road
vehicle use, as well as, US Highway 20. The activities on the subject property will be nominal
compared to the activities that are already occurring in the Millican Valley Area.
Since there is no evidence of any regular, ongoing religious or cultural activities on the
Walker property, and since the Applicant has agreed that upon prior notice, it would restrict any
blasting activities on the property during any such religious or cultural activities, the Board
concludes the zone change will not have an impact on any cultural or religious activities that
might occur on the Walker property.
4. Coyote Well. The Board concludes that monitoring points at the perimeter of the
mining site will prevent any adverse impact to the Coyote Well. Petitioners argued that the
County failed to evaluate whether vibrations from blasting would impact the Coyote Well
structure. LUBA concluded that remand was necessary so the County could adopt findings to
address this issue.
In response to this assignment of error, the Applicant contracted with Kleinfelder, Inc. to
analyze the vibrations from blasting operations at the proposed mining site. The purpose of the
review was to assess potential blasting vibrations and impact in response to structures and
historical artifacts, as identified in the LUBA Decision.
A Technical Memorandum was prepared by William C.B. Gates, Ph.D., P.E., C.E.G. and
R. Scott Wallace, R.G., both of Kleinfelder West, Inc. dated January 4, 2008. The
Memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein by reference. The
Memorandum concluded as follows:
5 — Final Decision 6829-076 301v2.doc
"Based on our analysis and that of Apollo Geophysics Corporation, the proposed
blasting plan scenario and the proposed operations for Spencer Well Pit, damaging
vibrations generated from blasting is unlikely to impact structures on the Walker
Property, Coyote Well, Pictographs, Best Shelter and the Evans Well Ranch. Vibrations,
reported as peak particle velocity (PPV) at full build out are expected to be less than 0.2
inches per second at the Coyote Well. Similarly, vibration displacement of rock as a
result of blasting vibrations is expected to be less than 0.005 inches at the Coyote Well.
Ground vibrations are expected to be within safe limits established by the Office of
Surface Mining (Siskind, et al., 1980). Monitoring points at key areas around the
perimeter of the mine site are recommended to monitor vibrations during blasting
operations."
Based upon the Technical Memorandum prepared by Kleinfelder West, Inc. the Board
concludes that vibrations from blasting should not impact the Coyote Wells structure. However,
monitoring points at key areas around the perimeter of the mine site will be required to monitor
vibrations during blasting operations to be sure that ground vibrations are within the safe limits
established by the Office of Surface Mining.
A representative of the Applicant, Ron Robinson Jr., testified that the core drillings made
to determine the quantity and quality of the material were important to him in that if groundwater
had been present, special precautions would have to be taken. There was no evidence of
ground water in all of the core drillings that were done on the site. Kleinfelder has confirmed
that there is no evidence of any hydrological connection between the Applicant's site and the
Coyote Well. The Applicant does have a groundwater permit for the operation. However, that
groundwater permit will be from the aquifer within the Millican Valley and not from any perched
water tables that may or may not be present in the area.
The Applicant's expert, geologist Ralph Christianson, essentially confirmed the
conclusions of Kleinfelder with respect to any hydrological connection between the subject a
property and the Coyote Well.
5. Best Shelter. The County did identify dust, noise, traffic and vibrations as
potential conflicts around the Best Shelter. This is a structure located on private property
approximately 1,775 feet from the subject property. Petitioners argue that the County failed to
evaluate those potential impacts and either mitigate the impacts or address them under the
ESEE Analysis. They concluded that the Intervenor did not cite any findings that addressed
conflicts with the shelter or explain why such conflicts need not be addressed.
There is a structure that has been identified as the "Best Shelter" located on private
property approximately 1,775 feet from the subject property. It would not be accurate to identify
this as a "historic structure".
A photograph of the structure is attached hereto as Exhibit "4" and incorporated herein
by reference. There is some evidence of human occupancy, but that seems to occur on a very
sporadic basis. The structure itself was constructed without the issuance of any building
permits. It is not occupied full-time. The Applicant and its representatives have never seen
anyone at the shelter itself. Based upon the location of the shelter, the impact of increased
traffic on Spencer Wells Road would be of no greater impact than the existing traffic on U.S.
Highway 20. Based upon the evaluation done by Kleinfelder West, Inc. to identify potential
blasting vibrations, the Board has no reason to believe that vibrations would be an issue for the
existing structure. Vibrations generated from the subject property would be no greater than
6 — Final Decision 6829-076 301v2.doc
noise already generated by U.S. Highway 20. There is no evidence of any agricultural use on
the property upon which the Best Shelter is located.
Based upon the Technical Memorandum dated January 4, 2008 from Kleinfelder West,
Inc., the vibrations from blasting operations should not be a conflict with the Best Shelter. This
even takes into account the increase of traffic on Spencer Wells Road from the mine itself.
Finally, there is no evidence that there will be any more dust generated from the subject
property than is already generated from the operation of off road vehicles in the Millican Valley.
The Board concludes no mitigation of these potential conflicts is required.
6. Whether the Mining Pit Itself will Dewater Nearby Shallow Perched Aquifers.
The Board finds that the mining activities will not dewater or impact shallow aquifers.
Petitioners made an argument that the mining pit itself could dewater nearby shallow perched
aquifers. LUBA agreed that the County did not evaluate the concern of whether the mining pits
itself might impact shallow perched aquifers.
In response to this assignment of error, Applicant contracted with Kleinfelder West, Inc.
A Memorandum was prepared January 14, 2008 by William Gates, Ph.D., P.E., C.E.G. and R.
Scott Wallace, R.G. Said Memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit "5" and incorporated
herein by reference. They conducted a hydrogeologic review of the northwestern portion of the
Millican Basin and the proposed Spencer Wells Pit/Quarry area. They concluded as follows:
"Based on our hydrogeologic evaluation, the proposed Spencer Wells Pit appears
unlikely to adversely impact water quality or water levels within shallow, perched
aquifers and hydrogeologic continuity with Coyote Well or the intermittent drainage (dry
river) which serves an outlet for surface water run off within the Millican Valley."
Based upon the additional evidence prepared by Kleinfelder West, Inc., the County concludes
that the Spencer Wells Pit would not adversely impact water quality or water levels within
shallow perched aquifers and hydrogeologic continuity with Coyote Well or the intermittent
drainage (dry river) that serves an outlet for surface water run off within the Millican Valley.
7. Impact of Blasting Generated Dust on Walker Residence. Considering the
source of dust from limited blasting events and the evidence from the Applicant that there are
reasonable and practical measures, the Board finds no need to limit or prohibit mining activities.
The Petitioners argued that the County's decision did not evaluate dust from blasting, that
blasting generates significant amounts of dust, and that water cannot be used to control dust
from blasting, and that the comparison sites the County referred to in its Decision did not involve
excavation and blasting. LUBA concluded as follows:
"It may be, as Petitioners suggest, that there are no reasonable and practicable
measures to minimize or reduce adverse impacts on the Walker residence caused by
blasting generated dust, in which case the ESEE Analysis must consider those impacts
in weighing whether to allow, limit, or prohibit mining. However, the County's ESEE
findings on this point apparently did not consider or evaluate that source of dust."
First, Kleinfelder West, Inc. concluded in its analysis of vibrations from blasting
operations at the proposed Spencer Wells Pit dated January 4, 2008, that fly rock (rock ejected
from the blast site), was not anticipated based upon the typical blasting design and drilling
7 — Final Decision 6829-076 301v2.doc
patterns to be utilized by the Applicant. Secondly, blasting does not occur very often.
The County agrees with the Applicant that there are reasonable and practical measures
to minimize or reduce adverse impacts from dust. One way to minimize or even eliminate
blasting generated dust on the Walker residence is to conduct blasting when the wind directions
are blowing away from the residence. The Applicant has testified that blasting activities
generally occur during the winter months when there is manpower availability in the construction
business. The Applicant therefore contracted with Kleinfelder West, Inc. to monitor and record
wind speed and direction for the proposed site. Anemometer data was downloaded on a
monthly basis beginning November 19, 2007 through December 26, 2007. The results of these
preliminary studies indicated that 62.6% of the time the wind was blowing from a westerly
direction to the east. See Exhibit "6". 37% of the time the wind was blowing from the east to the
west. In both instances, the wind would be blowing away from the Walker residence.
Additionally, the Applicant does have a groundwater permit for the operation of this
particular project. Groundwater will be used to control dust. The road will be asphalt. The
actual quarry site will be watered to contain any dust. The only possible dust that will be
generated will be from the blasting used to break up the rock for mining purposes. This will
occur, at most, a half of a dozen times a year. Blasting is a single event, lasting just a few
second. The Applicant has demonstrated on similar sites east of Alfalfa, as well as, O'Neil
Junction that these activities can occur without creating any problems due to dust.
Finally, Applicant has designed significant buffers all around the actual mining site itself.
The operation of the site is overseen by OSHA, DEQ and MSHA to monitor the health and
safety of the employees on site. Blasting activities can occur without adverse impacts to the
neighboring property or even to the workers on site.
Furthermore, no state or federal agency has expressed any concerns with the project
based upon the mitigation measures that have been proposed by the Applicant. The Millican
Valley has already been impacted significantly by other dust -creating activities, i.e. off-road
vehicles that utilize the surrounding properties.
Except for the hard rock pit off of Skyliners Road, west of Bend, this would be the only
other significant hard rock quarry in Deschutes County. All of the rock is currently being
exported from Crook County. Before this application was even filed, the Applicant had engaged
the services of a number of professionals, including archeologists, geologists, and hydrologists
in order to confirm that the site could be operated so as to have minimal adverse impacts on
any surrounding land owners.
The Board approves the zone change given the extensive efforts to minimize the
impacts of dust and limited impact of blasting -generated dust.
8. Conflicts with Agricultural Uses. The Board concludes there are no conflicts with
agricultural uses given the distance of any grazing from the proposed blasting activities. OAR
660-023-018(5)(b)(E) requires the County to consider "conflicts with agricultural uses". OAR
660-023-0180(5)(c) provides that minimizing identified conflicts with agricultural practices
means conforming to the requirements of ORS 215.296. This would require findings on whether
the proposed use would force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of
agricultural practices on nearby lands. LUBA found that the rule is not concerned with the
relative significance of the agricultural use. The County's decision must address ORS 215.296
to determine whether there are proposed measures to minimize conflicts to agricultural
8 — Final Decision 6829-076 301v2.doc
practices under this statute.
The impact area has been identified as an area within one-half mile of the property line
of the subject property.
There is no evidence of any dry land grazing or other agricultural uses on any property
lying north of U.S. Highway 20 within one-half mile of the subject property. There is no
evidence of any dry land grazing or other agricultural uses within one-half mile of the subject
property to the east or south of the property. The surrounding property is all undisturbed
sagebrush with the exception of off road vehicle recreational uses.
The property that lies within one-half mile to the west of the subject property that is in
private ownership. It also has no evidence of dry land grazing or other agricultural uses.
There is an adjacent 40 -acre parcel to the west and additional properties administered
by the BLM lying south and west of the subject property, that are part of the Evans Wells Ranch
(Nash) BLM Grazing Allotment. The Evans Wells Ranch Grazing Allotment on BLM lands
consists of 22,285 acres. The allotment all lies west of Spencer Wells Road and south of U.S.
Highway 20. A copy of the location of the grazing allotment has been attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. The BLM assigns a time of year and length of time for each
pasture within the grazing allotment. Of that portion of the grazing allotment that lies within the
impact area, that portion of the grazing allotment amounts to only one percent (1 %) of the total
22,285 -acre grazing allotment for the Evans Wells Ranch.
The grazing allotment is separated from the subject property by Spencer Wells Road.
The subject property will be fenced, along the western boundary, which will keep livestock from
entering the subject property itself from the adjacent grazing allotment. There will also be a
200 -foot buffer that will be provided throughout the life of the project. There is no evidence of
any sources of water on the grazing allotment within the buffer area.
Therefore, within the impact area, there is only evidence of a portion of a BLM grazing
allotment. The allotment is only used for the dry land grazing of cattle. The proposed use will
not force a significant change in accepted farm practices or significantly impact or increase the
cost of accepted farm practices in the area.
The Board concludes that the proposed use is separated from the BLM allotment by the
Spencer WeIIs 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.
9. ESEE Analysis. The Board adds three conditions to the zone change approval:
1. Based upon the Technical Memorandum prepared by William C.B. Gates,
Ph.D., P.E., C.E.G. of Kleinfelder West, Inc. dated January 4, 2008, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "3", Petitioners 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,
9 — Final Decision 6829-076 301v2.doc
2. Based upon the anemometer data collected by Kleinfelder, blasting will occur
when the prevailing wind is blowing away from the Walker residence.
3. 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.
IV. CONCLUSION: The Board hereby approves the plan amendment and zone change in
File No. PA -04-8 and ZC-04-6, subject to the conditions of operation set forth above.
DATED this
Dated this
ATTEST:
day of , 2008.
of , 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DENNIS R. LUKE, CHAIR
TAMMY MELTON, VICE CHAIR
Recording Secretary MICHAEL M. DALY, COMMISSIONER
10 — Final Decision - PA -04-8, ZC-04-6