Gould v. Deschutes County

Under DCC 18.113.070(D), the public is entitled to a hearing on whether a mitigation plan will result in no net loss or degradation of fish and wildlife resources.

Petitioner appeals a county decision approving the tentative plan (TP) for a portion of the first phase of intervenor’s destination resort. Under Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.113.070(D), any negative impacts on fish and wildlife caused by the resort must be mitigated such that there is no net loss or degradation of those resources. Because the resort’s use of groundwater is anticipated to impact an offsite stream, the approved final master plan (FMP) includes a mitigation plan which relies on mitigation water acquired from two particular sources. Petitioner subsequently submitted evidence that there were no agreements between intervenor and the identified water sources. In approving the TP, the county found that a change of water source might not meet the approved quantity and quality of mitigation water. Nonetheless, it concluded that compliance with the mitigation plan could be met by imposing a condition requiring intervenor to demonstrate to the county and the state that any alternate water sources provide the same quantity and quality of mitigation water. 

In the second assignment of error, petitioner argues this condition impermissibly allows modification of the mitigation plan without public input. Intervenor responds that the FMP did not require that mitigation water come from any particular source and that the issue of water availability was settled by the FMP approval such that the hearings officer had no legal basis for imposing the condition. LUBA agrees with petitioner that, because the mitigation plan was affirmed based on assumptions that the water would come from the identified sources, the condition allows for modification of the plan without public input. In turn, because the public is entitled to a hearing on whether DCC 18.113.070(D) is satisfied, the condition denies interested persons their participatory rights. Lastly, because intervenor did not file a cross-petition for review challenging the condition, LUBA has no authority to reverse it while affirming the remainder of the decision. The second assignment of error is therefore sustained, in part, and the county’s decision is REMANDED.