IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF GRANT

Access the court’s weekly Agenda and approved Minutes on the Commissioner’s page at www.gcoregonlive2.com.

OCTOBER 28, 2014

Pursuant to notice made to the newspaper of general circulation and KJDY radio throughout Grant County, a special Work Session of the County Court was held at the Grant County Regional Airport in John Day OR.

6:00 pm — Call to Order. Present were Judge Scott W. Myers, Commissioners Boyd Britton and Chris B. Labhart, Public Access Advisory Board members Jim Sproul, Judy Kerr, John Bastian, Bruce Ward, Mark Pengelly and Tom McHatton. Others attending were Sheriff Glenn Palmer, Malheur National Forest representatives Steve Beverlin, Amy Unthank, Zeke Langum, Mike Montgomery and Ben Lindley, Public Forest Commissioner Brooks Smith, and local citizens and Lindy Bastian and Steve Parsons. Self introductions around the room were made.

The Work Session was scheduled to give the County Court, the Public Access Advisory Board, and the Malheur National Forest an opportunity to discuss how things will best work for this joint effort. Myers proposed to create ground rules and a plan on how this collective group is going to work together for the good of public access to public lands. He said it is important to assure that we work collectively in a respectful, honest, and non-controversial manner. Myers asked what each group would expect this body to do to establish the inter-relationship between the groups. He encouraged each group to speak with the same voice and have common ground.

Judy Kerr sought direction on how the board is going to communicate with the forest service. She wanted to know if they board needs to go through the court to talk to Mr. Beverlin. Kerr felt that a contact person should be identified. John Bastian thought the board was formed to communicate with the court in an advisory manner. He felt the court should be the one to approach the forest about issues rather than the board. Bastian wasn’t sure what the board was to do since they’ve been given no information.

Britton understood the forest would provide the court with a list of roads being considered for a change or modification in use, since the Ordinance was adopted. At that point, he thought that information could be given to the board for their review and subsequent advice the court. After that, Britton felt the county and board could possibly look at other things concerning road access. Judy Kerr felt there was a breakdown because information has not been obtained from the forest. Britton accepted responsibility for that and proposed to work with Mr. Beverlin and Mr. Lindley soon to obtain a list of roads.

Beverlin said it is all public information; however, it is a matter of when information is at a stage where the public can react to it (once alternatives are formed). The forest would like to have input up front in the development of alternatives, then the board can see the specifics of what that looks like. Brooks Smith explained opportunities in the scoping process when discussions with the board can be entertained. He suggested that organizations be in contact with the board in the beginning so it knows about the trails and/or roads at issue. Beverlin explained that the forest doesn’t have “a list” because nothing is that firmed-up yet. Tom McHatton felt it was good to have a definition of what “the list” should include i.e. anything that’s going to be modified and that would address access.

Judy Kerr suggested allowing a board member to be included in the forest’s ID team process once a project has been identified. Beverlin didn’t want to bog-down or add another layer to the number of staff processes they have already. He described opportunities currently available in the public scoping process, the collaborative process, and other meetings for engagement of the public. He suggested identifying a board contact that the forest can go to with questions, and also put on the mailing list for receiving information on projects.

Britton referred back to the collaborative process and said all of the projects are now going through this process. He noted that the collaborative meets at the airport and the board can be added to the mailing list. Jim Sproul interjected — we are not talking about collaboration (now), but how the forest and the county are going to follow the Ordinance and how the board is going to work with the Ordinance. He felt the Ordinance was clear and should be recognized and followed as law. Sproul thought the board has been kind of marginalized, without any clear direction from the court. He also felt there was misunderstanding about who to go to within the forest service. Myers asked Sproul to explain how the board would like to see this work. Sproul felt the board was put together to assist the court, but now they are hearing maybe the board should be involved with the collaborative. Britton mentioned the collaborative because that is the initial / ground-floor part of it. Beverlin said the forest could best utilize the board’s perspective at those early opportunities for involvement, at the start, before any project alternatives are defined.

Judy Kerr and Jim Sproul indicated that the board needs to have visual information (maps) to look at and discuss before the board can be advisory to the court. Beverlin said available maps can be provided to the board. He described the process for scoping and proposed alternatives. Sproul felt it was imperative for the forest to involve the board up front in scoping.

Beverlin asked the board to give the forest a proposal for access to the Magone Watershed. Sproul pointed out that the forest already has that in the form of the Ordinance that states public agencies must get approval from the County Court and Sheriff in order to close any roads.

Britton asked to hear from Bruce Ward. Ward said it was the first he’s ever heard of this process. Ward felt everyone appreciates what the forest is doing. However, he was interested in knowing how we can help get the general public engaged so it understands what the forest is doing.

Myers was asked about his thoughts. Myers felt it will take cooperation between the groups and the public and, if we come to that, that’s what’s going to work. Labhart said he did not want to go to court on this Ordinance. Rather, he’d like to work together to have road access. Labhart also understood that it’s not going to work if we don’t work together. He talked about the first time the Ordinance was used for the Galena Project which he felt was very successful.

Britton read the board’s notes that he presented for consideration at the first board meeting –

1.) Advise the court on direction toward the forest service, 2.) Reasonable well-thought-out issues to benefit the citizens of Grant County, 3.) Maintain a system of (road) continuity,

4.) Nag the court to keep on top of issues, 5.) The court needs to ask the forest service about what road closures are planned, and then present information to the board, 6.) Stay on course with access to public lands, 7.) The here-and-now needs to be taken care of first, 8.) Maintain focus and establish credibility, 9.) Determine the “what” and “why” on closures, and 10.) Ask the forest service for documentation of resource damage of proposed road closures. Britton remarked on the great success and economic benefits seen locally due to the collaborative process.

Myers asked Beverlin for copies of proposed closures on Elk 16 that we can give to the board. He agreed to get those (proposed action and alternatives) and said he could have brought a copy this evening. Beverlin said the same goes for Big Mosquito when that comes out.

Labhart confirmed with Beverlin that things could have been changed if they were identified at the point the forest service met with the court on the Galena Project. Beverlin indicated that they could do the same thing with the board. He asked for the county’s input and recommendation on Magone because the forest is at that point now. However, Elk 16 and Big Mosquito are now already way past that point.

Jim Sproul spoke with Beverlin about the forest’s directive on road density.

Tom McHatton hoped there can be a forest go-to person and a board go-to person identified by the end of this meeting, so we can move forward.

Labhart hoped to focus our future work on ordered projects.

Some discussion took place about the board members’ need to have a meeting to select a go-to person that can represent the board’s interests to the county and the forest.

Beverlin proposed the forest service go to County Court with overlays of Elk 16 and Big Mosquito, similar to what was done on Galena, because that’s where they are in the process. He said Magone, Camp Lick, and Summit projects are much earlier in the process where input can be provided up front.

Labhart suggested that the entire group be involved in the forest’s presentation on Elk 16 and Big Mosquito. Sproul believed this information really needs to be reviewed in the field. Labhart suggested having a review in the field after the overlays are presented at County Court.

Some other discussion followed about the current status of Vance Creek, trust the people must have in the forest service, the possible influence of Agenda 21, cross county travel management, and the opportunity available now to cooperatively move forward as a community.

Forest Service rep Amy Unthank asked for email addresses to add to the mailing list. Judy Kerr agreed to send the board members’ email addresses to Unthank.

NOTE: Some sections of the audio were difficult to hear due to background noises or recording device interruptions caused by incoming (cell) phone calls.

— Adjourned

Respectfully Submitted,

Mary R. Ferrioli

County Court Secretary