Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-04422REVIEWED 92-26467 1 LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending PL -20, 1: 20 Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Concerning Surface Mining ESEES and I':: Declaring an Emergency. 011.9-0L0 ORDINANCE NO. 92-044 WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC) the County has been required to review and update its Comprehensive Land Use Plan, known as PL -20, the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), and implementing ordinances, including for surface mining resources, to assure continuing compliance with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals; and WHEREAS, Policy 15A of the Surface Mining Goals and Policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan requires a review during periodic review of the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy consequences analyses (ESEEs) in the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to certain surface mining sites as those ESEE analyses relate to conflicts with natural resources identified as Goal 5 resources; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend certain of those ESEH statements to ensure their compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5 provisions in order to complete periodic review; WHEREAS, public hearings have been held in furtherance of this objective in conformance with state law before the Deschutes County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for Deschutes County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the public; now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO SURFACE MINING ESEES. The ESEE statements of certain surface mining sites, as identified in and adopted as part of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance 90-029 are amended as set forth in Part V of Exhibile - A to this Ordinance, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein by reference, with respect to each numbered site corresponding to the site numbering as set forth in Ordinance 90-029. -'''y� yf�ED �,/ aaco:amen 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 92-044 (8/5/92) -(Y^ 0119-011 Section 2. FINDINGS. This ordinance is supported by the entirety of the findings and decision document attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3. CORRECTIONS. This ordinance may be corrected by order of the Board of County Commissioners to cure editorial and clerical errors and to insert appropriate legislative history references. Section 4. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance or any exhibit thereto is adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any exhibit thereto. Section 5. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. GATED this day of August19 2. BOARD, OF OUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DE TES COUNTY. OREGON A0 Recording Secretary 2 - ORDINANCE N0. 92-044 (8/5/92) 0119-0112 EXHIBIT A BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY In the Matter of the Deschutes County) Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, Policy ) 15(A) Concerning Surface Mining and ) FINDINGS AND DECISION Conflicting Goal 5 Resources. ) I. INTRODUCTION In 1990, the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") adopted Ordinance 90-29, to amend the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by adding the site-specific ESEE (Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy) analyses for 107 inventoried mining sites. At the same time, the Board zoned 80 sites for surface mining where protection of conflicting uses and other Goal 5 resources is required (3-C decision) while still allowing for mining to occur. 27 sites were not zoned for surface mining due to site-specific decisions to fully protect conflicting resources (3-5 decision) at these locations. Land use conflicts with rural residential areas were also determined to exist at many of the sites. The ESEE analyses, along with other supporting documents, were submitted by the Board to DLCD (Department of Land Conservation and Development) for Goal 5 acknowledgement of the county's comprehensive plan with respect to surface mining. LCDC (Land Conservation and Development Commission) adopted an acknowledgement order in 1991 which required the county to complete additional evaluation of the surface mining ESEE analyses to ensure the level of protection for significant Goal 5 resources is consistent with the level of protection adopted for conflicting resources identified in surface mining ESEE analyses. In April, 1991, the county's comprehensive plan was amended by Ord. No. 91-010 to add policy 15(A) (Attachment 1), as required by LCDC's acknowledgement order. This plan policy required the county, in part, to "evaluate the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of those conflicting resources identified as significant Goal Page 1 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0113 5 resources in the ESEE analysis for surface mining sites and [to3 develop program(s) to achieve the Goal (DAR, Division 16)." New ESEE analyses and programs were required to be developed for any significant Goal 5 resources not already inventoried and evaluated in the comprehensive plan. The re-examination of all 107 ESEE analyses for mineral and aggregate resources since the adoption of comprehensive pian policy 15(A) has resulted in a determination by the county that one or more significant Goal 5 natural resources were improperly identified and/or omitted as conflicts with surface mining at 71 sites. For example, many sites are identified as being in a deer winter range that are not actually located within a winter range, but have other significant Goal 5 resources, such as fish habitat or riparian habitat, that conflict with mining of mineral and aggregate resource. The county has determined that the source of much of this error was a misinterpretation of earlier correspondence from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). ODFW identified sites they reviewed for fish and wildlife resources as being located in areas of "deer winter range special wildlife considerations." oDFw meant this to be an overall statement about all the sites they evaluated. However, particular sites were intended to be considered as being in a deer winter range " some other habitat area outside of a deer winter range where special fish and/or big came wildlife consideration was recommended (Attachment 2, letter from Norm Behrens to David Leslie dated March 18, 1992). ODFW has also provided comments about significant fish and wildlife resources for each site where conflicting resource discrepancies were discovered by the county (Attachment 2 and Attachment 10, letter from Norm Behrens to Dave Leslie dated April 17, 1992). Two spreadsheets have been prepared which summarize some of the results of this periodic review project. Attachment 3 lists the sites by county file number and the conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analyses for the twenty-seven 113-B" decisions . Eighteen of the 27 'ESEE analyses have been revised in accordance with site-specific findings below to comply with policy 15(A). The County fs previous decision to fully protect the conflicting resources is reaffirmed at at all but one mining site. In one location, sate No. 4750 it appears that the County may need to reconsider its decision to not protect the mining resource, but the significance of the resource is now in question. The county has determined that placing this site in a "1-H" status is the appropriate action to take at this time. The 80 sites with "3-C" decisions and their respective conflicting resources are identified on Attachment 4. Site-specific findings and revisions to the ESEE analyses for Page 2 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0114 53 of these sites have been adopted by the county by adding and/or deleting certain resources as being in conflict with surface mining. The program to meet Goal 5 at 42 of the sites has also been revised to be consistent with the amended ESEE analyses of conflicting resources. The county's previous 113-c" decisions for all these sites are reaffirmed. II. Application of Comprehensive Plan Policy 15(A) To meet the requirements of policy 15(A) a checklist (Attachment 5) was developed by planning staff to assist in the evaluation of the ESEE analysis for each mining site. The county determined all conflicting resources identified in each ESEE analysis, identified any 'non-significant' resources mistakenly identified as significant, and then evaluated the consistency of protection provided for each significant conflicting resource. In response to concerns raised by DLCD staff about the emphasis the checklist apparently placed on re-evaluating earlier decisions, the county proposed a specific seven -step process to complete the evaluation required by plan policy 15(A). (See Attachment 6, letter from Karen Green to Mike Rupp dated March 13, 1992.) DLCD staff concurred in writing that the seven -step process described by the county is an acceptable process for complying with the policy. (see letter from Mike Rupp to Karen Green, dated March 18, 1992, Attachment 7.) The Deschutes County Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 8, 1992, to consider public testimony regarding the application of plan policy 15(A). one member of the public testified regarding a site plan for mining at a location not affected by any revisions through this review process. The Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing on May 26, 1992 concerning this matter, no Member of the public testified. No written comments were received by the county from the public regarding this matter. III. Response to DLCD Comments Notice to DLCD was given, prior to the Planning Commission hearing along with a draft of the plan policy analysis, the proposed revisions to the ESEE analyses and Attachments 1 through 10 of this package of material. The county received written comments from DLCD on May 11, 1992 concerning proposed revisions and Goal 5 analysis affecting 33 sites inventoried for mineral and aggregate resources (Attachment 11, letter from Doug White to Dave Leslie dated may 8, 1992). The county's response to the concerns raised by DLCD staff Page 3 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0115 has resulted, where appropriate, in further revisions to the findings and/or program to meet the Goal in site-specific ESEE analyses, as indicated below. Sites 273 274 & 275 The Board finds that testimony in the acknowledged record indicates a golden eagle nest is located on site 273 and immediately adjacent to Site 274 and that the Public Works Director recommended resource extraction be limited to site 275. The record also indicates that the quality of the resource at Site 273 is questionable and that the Public Works Director recommended no resource extraction occur at this location and that Site 274 only be used for storage. Site 275 is located to the east of the other two sites and does not have an eagle nest located on it. Also, a program condition was included at this site which requires that processing occur as far to the east as possible to minimize conflict with the eagle nest. The Board also finds that a site plan for mining operations, including processing, was approved by the county in 1991 (County File No. SP -91-10) and that all excavation and processing anticipated to be necessary for at least five years has already occurred, in accordance with the conditions for the approved site plan and the acknowledged SEES for this site. Based on the specific location of the conflicting resource in this area, the Board finds that the original decisions for all three sites, based on the adopted ESEE consequences as amended below in in Section V of this submittal, are justifiable and consistent with respect to Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule (OAR 660-16-000 at al). Site 317 The Board finds that the mineral and aggregate resource at Site 317 is cinders whereas there is aggregate material at Sites 315 and 316. The Board finds that the county has previously determined in acknowledged ESEE analyses that there is greater significance to aggregate resources than cinder resources due to the fact that cinder resources are prevalent throughout the county whereas aggregate resources are more limited in their distribution and there is more demand annually for aggregate as compared to cinders. The Board also finds that although Site 317 is located further from Black Butte than Sites 315 and 316, noise, dust and traffic resulting from mining activity at this location would impact the destination resort. The Black Butte destination resort contains year-round residents and a significant number of visitors travel to the resort each year to enjoy the amenities at the resort, particularly during the Page 4 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0116 late spring, sununer and fall when mining activities would most likely occur at this site. The Board finds that this resort is specifically designated on the 1979 Deschutes county comprehensive plan map for "Destination Resort" uses and that the economic importance of this destination resort to the economy of Deschutes County is indisputable. Based on the specific type of resource at this site and the prevalence of cinder resources throughout the county, the Board finds that this one site is not a significant resource in that it contains an estimated one million yards out of a total of over forty million yards of cinders placed on the county's inventory and over twenty-one million yards protected at 24 sites zoned for surface mining. Therefore, the Sward finds that the original decision for Site 317 to allow conflicting uses fully, based on the findings above and the adopted ESEE consequences as amended below in Section V of this submittal, is justifiable and consistent with respect to Gaal 5 and the Goal 5 rule (OAR 660-16-010(2). Site 341 Section V of this submittal includes a revision to the ESEE analysis for this site to delete "scenic" resources as a significant Goal. 5 resource at this location because this area is not within a designated stream corridor or highway designated as a Landscape Management combining zone. Other resources remain in conflict with surface. Mining, namely wildlife and open space. The Board finds that the presence of these conflicting resources alone is sufficient basis to deny zoning the property for surface mining in order to fully protect these significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that no objections or appeals were filed with DLCD or a judicial court in the State of Oregon regarding its decision. Furthermore, the Board finds that subsequent to its decision in July, 1990, a proposal to utilize this property as a natural resource educational center available to the public has been advanced due to unique ecosystem characteristics resulting from topographic and vegetative variations on the subject property. The Board finds that use of this property for surface mining would conflict with this proposed use. Tberefore, the Board finds sufficient basis to affirm its earlier decision based on the adopted ESEE analysis, as amended by the findings above and the findings in section V of this submittal. Site 351 The Board finds that subsequent to its decision to not zone this property in July, 1990, that conditional use permits for a non-farm dwelling have been approved by the county for two of the three tax lots which comprise the subject property. Page 5 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-444 June 10, 1992 ilto2j ane dwelling has been constructed and the ot 0is be 1" built at this time. Therefore, the Board finds that there is no longer the practical ability to extract any mineral and aggregate resource at this site without direct conflict with existing uses. Based on the specific conflicts with mining at this site, the Board finds that the original decision for Site 351, based on the adopted ESEE consequences, as amended by the findings above and the findings below in section V of this submittal, is justifiable and consistent with respect to Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule (GAR 660-16-000 et al). Site 392 The Board finds that that portion of site 392 where hard rock is present has been denied zoning for surface miring due to surrounding land use conflicts but that the remainder of the property, where select fill is located, has been appropriately zoned for surface mining. The Board also finds that the level of conflict from noise and dust from the blasting and mining of hard root would be greater than conflicts resulting from the excavation of fill. Based on the specific conflicts with mining at this site and the presence of two distinct types of mineral and aggregate resources in different locations, the Board finds that the original decision for Site 392, which is also based on the adopted ESEE consequences as amended below in Section V of this submittal, is justifiable and consistent with respect to Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule (OAR 654--16-000 of al) - The Board finds that testimony in the record from neighbors regarding raptor use at this site cannot be substantiated by ODFW. Therefore, the Board finds that while some raptor use may occasionally occur at this site such use does not constitute a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining. The ESEE analysis for Site 392 is hereby amended by the Board to reflect this determination. The Board also finds that no modification to the Program to meet the Goal is necessary as a result of this determination because there is no specific requirement pertaining only to raptor use. Sites 315 & 316 The reference to "other wildlife" has been deleted from Attachment 4 as recommended by DLCD. The Board finds that the Black Butte resort contains year-round residents and that a significant number of visitors travel to the resort each year to enjoy the amenities at the resort. The economic importance of this destination resort to the economy of Deschutes County is indisputable. Page 6 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0129 The Board finds that due to the summer influx of visitors to this area the program requirement which limits processing of the mineral and aggregate resource to 45 days is an appropriate manner in which the conflicts with mining are balanced with the needs of nearby visitors and residents. The Board also finds that the 45 -day limitation was agreed to by proponents and opponents to the proposal to zone this site for surface mining during the hearing process before the Board and that no objections to this decision were filed with DLCD or a judicial court in the State of Oregon subsequent to the Board's decision in July of 1990. The processing time limitation still enables mining of the resource to occur at this site. Therefore, the Board finds that this restriction is consistent with the Goal 5 rule, OAR660-16-010(3), given that reasons to support this restriction are presented in the comprehensive plan, the site has been zoned for surface mining, and that ESEE consequences "have been balanced so as to allow the conflicting use but in a limited way so as to protect the resource site to some desired extent." (emphasis added) Sites 361, 381, 394, 395. 465 & 466 OAR 660-16-005(1) states: "If there are no conflicting uses for an identified resource site, the jurisdiction must adopt policies and ordinance provisions, as appropriate, which insure preservation of the resource site." The Board finds that the county is preserving these resource sites in that these sites are zoned for surface mining. Section 18.52.100 0£ the County Code includes a provision which states that site plan approval shall not be denied unless the ESEE requirements and setbacks, standards and conditions in the surface mining chapter of the code (Chapter 18.52) are not or cannot be satisfied by the proposed site plan. The Board also finds that these sites have previously been found (in the adopted ESEE analysis) to have operated historically and that the consequences of the adopted program to meet the Goal at this location are primarily "whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed to existing and potential land use conflicts." The Board also finds that Sites 361 and 381 are located in or immediately adjacent to subdivisions which are zoned Rural Residential and are developed with numerous residences adjacent and near to the mining activity, as permitted in the zone. The Board also finds when site plan review is required at a mining site, that Section 18.52.110(8) of the County Code limits extraction to five acres, excluding access roads, equipment storage areas, processing equipment sites, stockpiles, areas where reclamation is in progress and Page 7 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0119 similar accessory uses which are necessary to the mining operation. Furthermore, the Board finds that there is no express limitation in Goal 5 or the Goal 5 rule which prevents the. County from imposing standards under which mining can occur, but rather that the county "must adopt Y- II ies r'd adi nnisi hick P _ _ cr once pro cos, a3 SUYW&. hL MYT' 1 insure preservation of the resource site." (DAR 660-16-045(1), emphasis added) There is no evidence in the record to indicate that the owners of these sites believe that the condition to limit excavation to five acres at one time will adversely affect preservation of the resource; the mineral and aggregate resource has been protected in all cases. Moreover, the county's experience with this limitation has been favorable. since the adoption of this requirement as a condition in the County Code (and in some cases as a program requirement) there have been four site plans submitted for review for surface mining. In all four operation plans the aprlicanta indicated that this standard would be followed and all four plans were approved with the five -acre limitation. As of yet, there is no documentation that this requirement is burdensome to site owners or operators and the Board finds that this is a reasonable measure which allows the resource to be utilized while at the same time preventing unnecessary site disturbance in any one-year period of time. Based on the findings above and the adopted ESEE analysis for these sites, as revised by site-specific findings below in Section V of this submittal, the Board finds that the program policy limiting extraction to five acres at one time with ongoing reclamation has no adverse impact to surface mining operations, provides for reasonable protection of the resource and is therefore consistent with Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule. Sites 441-443, 459, 469 & 543 Findings in Section V of this submittal for these sites have been modified to state that the migration corridor associated with the Metolius Deer winter Range is considered by the county to possibly be a "significant" Goal 5 resource. ODFW has provided the county with a map showing the overall boundary of the migration corridor, but is not able at this time to provide documented evidence of the precise location or quantity of the resource. Generalized quality, quantity and location information for the resource is based on ODFW staff knowledge regarding the number of road kills which occur in the area mapped. In accordance with the Goal 5 rule (DAR 560-16-000(5)(b), the county is choosing to delay the Goal 5 process for the Metolius deer migration corridor until more specific location, quantity and quality information becomes available. Page 8 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0120 habitat. Comparing the 1979 Resource Element plan map of strutting grounds with the map adopted during this periodic review illustrates that only two strutting grounds are mapped in the same location. While more precise mapping may partially explain these differences, the dynamics of this resource are also a factor. Therefore, the Board finds that additional consultation with ODFW is an appropriate program requirement for new or expanding mining operations since a significant Goal 5 resource not present today at or immediately adjacent to a mining site could be present and readily identified in the future. The Board also finds that because the mineral and aggregate resource is used primarily for highway maintenance projects near the vicinity of each site and is available at numerous sites, a program requirement to consult with ODFW and develop adequate setback and closure period restrictions to protect the conflicting resource will not adversely affect the overall protection of the mining resource in these locations IV. OVERVIEW OF CONFLICTING RESOURCES This section provides a brief overview of the County's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance policies and standards with respect to the significant Goal 5 resources identified in the surface mining ESEE analyses. In several instances the conflicting resources are no longer considered to be significant Goal 5 resources for reasons described below. The 107 ESEE analyses adopted by the County in 1990 for sites with mineral and aggregate resources identified the following conflicting resources: 1) Deer (winter range &/or migration route) 2) Antelope 3) Sage Grouse 4) Raptor and Other Bird Use and Nesting 5) Fish Habitat 6) Riparian Habitat 7) Open Space/Scenic Values 8) Historic sites 9) Area of Special Wildlife Consideration 10) State Scenic Waterway 11) Federal Wild & Scenic River 12) Water Quality 13) Wetlands 14) Geothermal Energy 15) Elk 16) Bear 17) Area of Special Interest Page 10 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-012 The county has amended its ESEE analyses for Deer Migrat on Corridors to reflect this determination. The Board believes the county can complete this process by the next periodic review, or possibly sooner if ODFW staff resources become available. Therefore, the Board has revised the ESEE amendments in Section V of this submittal for the sites listed above to delete the program requirement for consultation with ODFW consistent with the Goal 5 rule, as recommended by DLCD staff. Site 461 Deletion of the winter closure requirement for this site is appropriate because this site is no longer identified as being in a deer winter range. The site-specific EBEE analysis in Section V of this submittal has been revised to reflect this determination. Sites 501 503 505 506 508 515 522 524 528 d 533, The adopted ESEE analyses for these sites, except Sites 528 and 533, already identified these sites as being located within habitat area for sage grouse per the Resource Element of the comprehensive plan. The ESEE analyses for Sites 528 and 533 are revised in Section V of this submittal to add sage grouse as a conflict to surface mining. The Board finds that the Habitat Areas for Sensitive Birds ESEE analysis prepared during this periodic review has been revised to include surface mining as a conflict with sage grouse habitat and that the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone includes provisions for a review procedure with ODFW for conflicting uses within 1320 feet of sage grouse strutting grounds. ODFW has indicated the location of the strutting grounds (leks) as they presently exist and has determined the time of year and the setback necessary to protect these significant resources from any conflicting uses. Accordingly, the comprehensive plan map has been revised to reflect the present location of the strutting grounds and the ESEE analyses for these sites have been revised to require conformance with the provisions of the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone. None of the above listed mining sites is currently within 1320 feet of a known lek. The Board also finds that the comprehensive plan has been revised during this periodic review to require consultation with ODFW when uses conflicting with Goal 5 fish and wildlife resources are proposed. Because new strutting grounds may be established over time, it is possible that mining activities proposed in the future will conflict with a lek not yet established in the general area mapped for sage grouse Page 9 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 During the current periodic review process the county is completing a Goal 5 analysis for those significant resources not previously evaluated under Goal 5. These Goal 5 analyses and their respective programs to meet the Goal are examined in comparison to the level of protection afforded to the conflicting resources in the mineral and aggregate ESEE analyses with formal findings by the County in the next section of this report, as required by plan policy 15(A). While the basis for the findings lies within the resource -specific ESEE analyses either already acknowledged by LCDC or now being submitted with the periodic review package, the summaries below serve as additional background material for understanding the more formal findings which follow. 1. Deer Winter Range and Migration Routes. Migration of deer from forested areas west of the Deschutes River to wintering areas east of the river is recognized as an annual occurrence in the comprehensive plan. Three specific winter ranges have been recognized by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the County: Metolius, North Pauling and Tumalo Deer Winter .Ranges. The Resource Element of the comprehensive plan shows a map of these areas. Although migration occurs to and from all three winter ranges, ODF'W has completed an official migration study in only the LaPine area, associated with the North Paulina winter range. This area has the only migration corridors formally recognized as a significant Goal. 5 resource by the County at this time. As discussed above in section 111, the county has determined as part of periodic review that it is appropriate to classify the Metolius deer migration corridor as a "1-B" resource at this time. when more specific location, quantity and quality information becomes available, by the next periodic review or sooner if possible, the county will complete the Goal. 5 process for this resource. The deer winter ranges are designated as a Wildlife Area combining zone. Specific development standards have been adopted by the County for the creation of new parcels and other land use activity in both the winter ranges and the migration corridors. Goal 5 ESEE analyses have been prepared for the winter ranges and the migration corridor as part of this periodic review and the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study (River Study). 2. Antelope. A Goal 5 ESEE analysis has been completed for antelope as part of this periodic review. Year-round habitat maps, as prepared by ODFW, have been adopted by the County to identity Page 11 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 significant habitat areas requiring protection. The 19m01 method employed by the County to preserve antelope habitat is the Wildlife Area combining zone designation which requires that any new parcel contain a minimum of 3201 acres. 3. Sage Grouse. The County has adopted a resource map as part of the comprehensive plan indicating important habitat for sage grouse, including known lek sites. The Habitat Areas for sensitive Birds ESEE together with the Sensitive Bird and Mamma. Habitat Combining Zone, adopted by the Board as part of this periodic review, set forth requirements for protecting the strutting grounds from conflicting uses. Conflicting uses within one-quarter mile of a strutting ground (lek) will need to complete a protection program through consultation with ODFW. 4. Raptor and Other Bird Use and Nesting. The county has adopted maps indicating the general location of nest locations for various raptor species. Goal 5 ESEE analyses have been prepared, as part of this periodic review. One method to protect these sites will be the requirement for a site-specific review by ODFW to determine final setback requirements for development activity proposed within one-quarter mile of identified nest sites. 5. Fish Habitat. Fish habitat occurs within streams, lakes and reservoirs throughout Deschutes County_ The comprehensive plan indicates the importance of this resource with respect to the natural resource base of fish species, tourism expenditures, recreation opportunities and the overall quality of life. The text in the Resource Element has been revised by ODFW and adopted by the County as part of periodic review. The comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance currently protect fish habitat through a variety of measures, such as requiring development to occur outside of floodplains, requiring conditional use permits for docks and fill or removal within the bed and banks of all bodies of water and wetlands, and through conservation easements for the protection of riparian habitat for certain land use activities. Fish Resources are inventoried and analyzed with respect to conflicts and consequences in the River study. A new Goal 5 ESEE analysis has also been prepared for fishery resources as part of this periodic review. Page 12 Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-0344 ,dune 10, 1992 6. Riparian Habitat. 0119-0124 Riparian areas and wetlands along streams and lakes are identified in the comprehensive plan as areas of particular concern due to their importance as habitat for many species, their function as a migration corridor for big game and their limited extent. The wetlands maps adopted by the county during this periodic review and maps previously adopted as part of the plan from the River Study serve as the resource base for identifying the location of riparian areas in the County. Floodplain zoning, which requires a 100 -foot setback from the high water mark of streams and lakes, and Landscape Management (LM) combining zoning, 660 to 1320 feet landward of the high water mark, also provide protection for riparian habitat. The county's program to require conditional use permits for fill or removal activity includes vegetation removal, further adding to the protection of riparian habitat, as does the requirement to convey a conservation easement for certain development projects along the County's streams and rivers. Open Space and scenic Values. Open space and scenic resources are highly valued by residents of and visitors to Deschutes County. Open Space is inventoried and consequences are analyzed in the River Study. The County has updated this review and adopted amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance as part of this periodic review (Ordinances No. 92-033 and 92-034). The Landscape Management Combining Zone establishes specific development standards to maintain scenic and natural landscapes as seen from designated streams, rivers and roads throughout the county. The Wildlife Area combining zone provides for the preservation of large tracts of acreage as habitat for big game wildlife, including antelope, deer, elk, and sage grouse by requiring at least 40 acres of land for creating new parcels or maintaining 160 or 320 -acre minimums for certain species. Historic Sites. Historic sites were first inventoried by the County in the River Study, adopted as the River Corridor chapter of the Resource Element. The County has recently revised the Historic Resources chapter of the Resource Element as part of periodic review (Ord. No. 92-018) and adopted site-specific ESEE determinations as part of the comprehensive plan (Ord. No. 92-019). Protection of historic sites is accomplished through site review of projects that encompass or are adjacent to these areas. Page 13 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0125 9. Area of Special Wildlife Consideration. This resource phrase, taken from correspondence from the Oregon Department of Fish and wildlife, as discussed above, is a general term that was used to describe important and significant fish and wildlife values and habitats other than big game winter ranges. The county and ODFW have worked together to identify the specific resource values at each mining site, and the general term itself is no longer considered to refer to a significant Goal 5 resource. 10. State Scenic waterway. State Scenic waterways are administered by the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. The County coordinated with State Parks when adopting the new standards to the LM combining zone, discussed above under open space/scenic values. For example, the LM boundary now coincides with State Scenic waterway boundaries. State Parks provided clarification regarding the boundary of the Scenic waterway near Tumalo State Park for one particular mining site (See letters from Jan Houck to Dave Leslie dated March 25 and March 31, 1992, Attachments 8 and 9). 11. Federal Wild and Scenic River Corridors. Management plans are being prepared by the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for areas designated as Wild and scenic River Corridors in the County. The County participates in the planning process as a member of the Interdisciplinary Team for both agencies. Although the federal management plans will not directly impose any regulations on private lands, the County will assist these agencies in developing policies that are consistent with County land use regulations and the protection of significant resources associated with the river corridors. The recently adopted revisions to the zoning standards for the Landscape Management combining zone establish that the boundary for this zone is coincident with the federally --designated raver corridors. 12. Water Quality. The River Study documents the importance of maintaining water quality in the streams, rivers and lakes in the County. The County relies on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to administer regulations for the protection of surface water quality. The Oregon Water Resources Department administers regulations that provide for the use and protection of groundwater. The County has adopted comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance standards requiring Page 14 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 ,lune 14, 1992 detailed ground water studies for destination resort development. 13. Wetlands. 0119-0126 Wetland areas are inventoried and analyzed with respect to conflicts and consequences in the River Study and are protected by the programs described under "Riparian Habitat" above. A Goal 5 ESEE analysis has been prepared for wetlands as part of this periodic review. The wetlands maps for Deschutes County, prepared by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's under their National Wetlands Inventory mapping project have been adopted during the current periodic review process as the County's wetlands data base . 14. Geothermal Energy. In 1985, the County adopted a Geothermal Element as part of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. A Goal 5 ESEE analysis was completed at that time. The one mining site where geothermal energy was identified as a conflicting resource was specifically analyzed for geothermal energy as a resource in the Geothermal Element. Because the exploration and use of geothermal energy is specifically prohibited at this location it is no longer considered a conflicting resource to surface mining in the proposed findings for this site. 15 & 16. Elk and Bear. Elk and bear were determined to be conflicting resources at one proposed mining site. The occurrence of this wildlife, along with deer use, is a result of this site's location in the central caldera within Newberry National volcanic Monument. The occasional occurrence of these species in this location does not warrant their designation individually as significant Goal 5 resources. Furthermore, the entire caldera has been formally designated as a wildlife refuge by agreement between the ODFW and US Forest Service. Therefore, while their collective importance is recognized and valued by the County, the County has determined that individual ESEE analyses for elk and bear are not warranted for this site. The area surrounding the proposed mining site where elk and bear were identified is recognized in the Resource Element as an Area of Special Interest due to its past status as a National Natural Landmark. A revised ESEE analysis is being prepared as part of periodic review due to the legislation that designated this area as a National Monument in 1991. 17. Areas of Special Interest. Page 15 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0127 The Resource Element of the comprehensive plan inventories 69 sites for their significance as open spaces and areas of special concern. These areas include a variety of landforms such as river gorges, cinder buttes, cascade mountains, caves meadows, falls, lakes and rivers. Page 16 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0128 V. SITE-SPECIFIC FINDINGS AND REVISIONS TO ESEEANALYSES A. Sites Not Zoned For Surface Mining Site No. 246 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 246, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include fish and riparian habitat, and open space and scenic values. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range but is used for migration to and from the Metolius winter range area. While use of the area for deer going to and from the deer winter range is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this site is not within an area specifically studied and mapped by ODFW as a deer migration corridor in Deschutes County and this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 246 to delete the reference to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict individually and collectively with surface mining at this site. 5. The Board finds that except for deer winter range all other conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analysis are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that the conflicting resources should be protected fully and that the surface mining resource should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms Page 17 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 its decision not to zone Site No. 246 for surface wining. Sites Nos, 2!51. .4 278 0119.0129 1. The ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 251 & 278, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates these sites are located in a deer winter grange. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include fish and riparian habitat, raptor (golden eagle) use with a nearby nest, open space and scenic values, two historic sites and state scenic waterway. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range but is used by deer during the summer. While use of the area for deer is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 251 & 278 to delete the reference to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 3. The Board finds that Ord. No. 92-018 amended the comprehensive plan regarding historic sites and that the [Old] Cline Falls Bridge and Cline Falls Fish Ladder are no longer considered significant historic sites. The Board also finds, however, that the Cline Falls Power Plant is now listed on the inventory of historic sites and is located in the sane proximity to the mining sites as the previously inventoried sites. Therefore, historic values Tremain a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with mining. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites No. 251 & 278 to delete the reference to the Cline Falls Bridge and Cline Falls Fish Ladder, and to add a reference to the Cline Falls Power Plant as significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict individually and collectively with surface mining at this site. 5. The Board finds that except for deer winter range all other conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analysis are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Hoard finds that the conflicting resources Wage 18 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92--044 June 10, 1992 identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that the conflicting resources should be protected fully and that the surface mining resource should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone Sites Nos. 251 & 278 for surface mining. Site No, 271 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 271, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90--029, indicates this site is located in an area where scenic values are a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this location. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include wildlife habitat, due to its inclusion within the Tumalo deer winter range, and open space. 2. The Board finds that while scenic viers throughout Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state -designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board finds that scenic values are not a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 271 to reflect this determination. 3. The Board finds that the Social Consequences section of the ESEE analysis appropriately indicates that scenic values important to the tourism industry would be adversely impacted by dust and traffic resulting from surface mining at this site. A. The Board also finds that the other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis are significant Goal 5 resources that are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis, and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5. The Board identified in the scenic values, are the mineral and finds that the ESEE analysis of still of sufficient aggregate resource, Page 19 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 conflicting resources this site, excluding importance relative to that the conflicting 31 resources should be ���� protected fully and that the surface mining resource should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Therefore, based on the above findings the Hoard reaffirms its decision not to zone Site No. 271 for surface mining. Sites Nos, 273 & 274 1. The ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 2.73 & 274, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Hoard in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates these sites are located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resource identified in the ESEE analysis for this site includes raptor (golden eagle) use with a nearby nest location. 2. The Hoard finds that the Oregon Department of fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range but is used by deer year-round. While use of the area for deer is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 273 & 274 to delete the reference to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. with the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the .ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resource is a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 5. The Board finds that except for deer winter range the other conflicting resource identified in the adopted ESEE analysis is inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to it in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface wining and the protection afforded the same resource in other locations in the county. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter grange, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that the conflicting resources should be protected fully and that the surface mining resource should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Therefore, based on the above findings the Hoard reaffirms its decision not to zone Sites Nos. 273 & 274 for surface Page 20 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 mining. 011.9-0132 PM 1. The ESEE analysis for site No. 2s8, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 comprehensive Pian by the Board in Appendix A of ordinance 90-029, states in the Preliminary Findings section that "...the area is not within the LM zone protecting views along Highway 20." scenic values were not, therefore, determined to be a conflicting resource at this location. The conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include deer winter range, raptor use and open space. 2. The Board finds that this site is within the Landscape Management (LM) combining zone designated for one-quarter mile along both sides of Johnson and Tyler Roads in the county's comprehensive plan and zoning maps. Therefore, the Board finds that scenic values are recognized as a significant Goal 5 resource at this location and that these scenic values were mistakenly not identified in the ESEE analysis for this site. 4. The Board finds that the ESEE analysis for Site No. 288 is hereby amended to delete specific reference in the Preliminary Findings section to this site not being within the Highway 20 LM zone and revised to indicate instead that "the area is within the LM zone protecting the scenic views and open spaces along Johnson and Tyler Roads." The Board hereby amends the Conflicts analysis section of the ESEE analysis to indicate that the site's location within an LM combining zone indicates that an additional significant Goal 5 resource, specifically pce_nic values, is in conflict with surface mining at this site (in addition to the other conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE). The Board hereby amends the ESEE section an conflicts analysis of the open space values to indicate that this resource is also in conflict with mining as a result of the LM and WA combining zones, in addition to the EFU-20 zoning already stated in the ESEE. 5. The Board finds that the Environmental Consequences section of the ESEE analysis, which describes the adverse consequences which mining would have on wildlife habitat and open space, .is hereby revised to include scenic view impacts due to dust and truck traffic as additional impacts which would occur as a result of mining at this site. 6. The Board finds that scenic values and the other conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analysis are significant Goal 5 resources that are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the Page 21 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0133 site-specific ESEE analysis and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. Therefore, based on the findings above the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone Site No. 288 for surface mining. Site No, 313 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 313, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90--429, indicates this site is located near a large marsh and pond which provides nesting habitat for yellow --headed blackbirds and attracts osprey, blue herrn, geese and other waterfowl in addition to hawks, eagles and other raptors. The other conflicting resource identified in the ESEE analysis for this site is open space. 2. The Conflicts Analysis section of the ESEE analysis discusses the impacts on deer cover, food sources and displacement. The Board finds that deer use has not been identified as a significant conflicting resource at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis to delete paragraph #2 under Conflicts regarding deer impacts. 3. The Board finds that the large pond and marsh is shown on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory map (Alfalfa quadrangle) as a perennial wetland. The Board also finds that wetlands are a significant Goal 5 resource due to their importance to a variety of wildlife, including the species identified above at this particular location, for nesting and cover, and as a source of food and water. The Board determines that the ESEE analysis for this site is hereby amended to add wetlands as a third natural resource present at this location which is in conflict with surface mining. 4. The Board finds that as part of the current periodic review process the National, wetlands Inventory maps prepared by the U.S. Fish & wildlife service are being adopted as official maps for Deschutes County as the location inventory of wetlands throughout the county. By adopting these maps as resource maps of the county's comprehensive plan and preparing a separate Goal 5 analysis for wetlands, the Board finds that wetland resources are protected for their wildlife values throughout the county and that land use activities in and around wetlands are specifically limited by comprehensive plan policies and the zoning ordinance. The Board also finds that the policies and standards regarding wetlands are sufficient to protect in a consistent manner all wildlife which use a particular wetlands. Therefore, the Board finds that a separate Goal 5 analysis for a particular wetlands -dependent species, such as yellow -headed blackbirds at this location, is not necessary . Pace 22 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0134 5. The Board finds that all conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis, as amended above, are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone Site No. 313 for surface mining. Site leo. 3 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 317, adopted by the Board as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in an area where scenic values are a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining. No other conflicting resources are identified in the ESEE analysis for this site. 2. The Board finds that while scenic views throughout Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state. -designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board finds that scenic values are not a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 317 to reflect this determination. 3. The Board finds that the Social Consequences section of the ESEE analysis appropriately indicates that scenic values important to the residents in Black Butte Ranch, a conflicting use, would be adversely impacted by surface wining at this site. The Board hereby amends this section and the Economic Consequences section of the ESEE to also indicate that since this area is a destination resort of significant importance to the economy of Deschutes County, the cumulative impacts of surface mining would have a negative impact on this conflicting use during surface mining and ultimately by the removal of Five Mile Butte, the landform created by the cinder resources at this mining site. 4. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that the conflicting uses should be protected fully and that the surface mining resource should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Page 23 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 01.19-0135 Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone Site No. 317 for surface mining. Site No. 328 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 325, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include fish and riparian habitat, open space and scenic values, state scenic waterway, historic site and cultural values. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 326 to delete the reference to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict individually and collectively with surface mining at this site. 5. The Board finds that except for deer winter range all other conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analysis are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are stili of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that the conflicting resources should be protected fully and that the surface mining resource should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone Site No. 326 for surface raining. Page 24 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 14, 1992 Site No, 341 01-19-0136 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 341, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in an area where scenic values are a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this location. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include wildlife habitat and open space due to its location within the Tumalo deer winter range. 2. The Board finds that while scenic views throughout Deschutes county are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial valuer, to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state --designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board now determines that scenic values are not a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 341 to reflect this determination. 3. The Board finds that the Social Consequences section of the ESEE analysis appropriately indicates that scenic values important to the tourism industry would be adversely impacted by dust and traffic resulting from surface mining at this site. 4. The Board also finds that the other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis are significant Goal 5 resources that are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis, and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of the site, excluding scenic values, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that the conflicting resources should be protected fully and that the surface mining resource should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone Site No. 341 for surface mining. Site No. 351 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 351, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Page 25 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0137 Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in an area where scenic values are a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this location. No other conflicting resources are identified in the ESEE analysis for this site. 2. The Board finds that while scenic views throughout Deschutes County are extremely i.znportant to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining acne or a federal or state -designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board now determines that scenic values are not a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 351 to reflect this determination. 3. The Board finds that the social and Environmental consequences sections of the ESEE analysis appropriately indicate that scenic values and wildlife, while not significant Goal 5 resources, are nevertheless very important attributes in this area that would be adversely impacted by dust and traffic resulting from surface mining at this site. the Board also finds that the ESEE analysis identifies land use conflicts at this site as a result of the pattern of residential, use established in the nearby area. 4. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that the conflicting uses should be protected fully and that the surface mining resource should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone site No. 351 for surface mining. Site No. 423 1. The ESEE analysis for site No. 423, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Pian by the Board in Appendix A of ordinance 90--029, indicates this site is located in an area identified by ODFW "as being a sensitive wildlife area." The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include raptor use, open space, and water quality. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has clarified the sensitivity of the area for wildlife to mean this site is located in a highly used deer migration corridor. This corridor has been formally studied by ODFW and is mapped on the county's comprehensive plan as a Page 26 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 deer migration corridor. ODFW has also indicated that this site is not a nesting site for raptors. 0119-01-{ 3. While use of the area by raptors is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this site is not within close proximity to a raptor nesting site and this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource as this site, Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 423 to delete the reference to raptor use as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. The Board finds that zoning of the site as a ISM combining zone indicates that scenic values are a significant Goal 5 resource not previously identified in the ESEE analysis. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 423 to include scenic values as a conflicting resource at this site along with the open space values already identified. 5. With the exception of raptor use, the Board reaffirms its determination in the ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict individually and collectively with surface mining at this site. 5. The Board finds that except for raptor: use all other conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analysis, along with the scenic values now identified, are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding sensitive wildlife areas, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that the conflicting resources should be protected fully and that the surface mining resource should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone Site No. 423 for surface mining. Site No. 433 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 433, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2040 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90--029, indicates this site is located in a wildlife refuge established between ODF'W and the ❑.S. Forest Service and also within a National Natural Page 27 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92--044 June 10, 1992 0119-0139 Landmark as indicated in the Areas of Special Interest section of the Resource Element in the county's comprehensive plan. Conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include summer use by deer, elk and bear, raptor use and a nearby bald eagle nest site, fish habitat, open space and scenic values, geothermal energy resources. 2. Summer use of an area individually by deer, elk or bear is an important resource value for wildlife but not necessarily a significant Goal 5 resource. However, the Board finds that the collective use of this site by these species together with the wildlife refuge designation by ODFW and the Forest Service, makes these wildlife values a significant Goal 5 resource at this location. 3. The Board finds that the Areas of Special Interest comprehensive plan map is being amended during the current periodic review process to indicate that this site is now located in Newberry National Volcanic Monument as designated by the D.S. Congress. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 433 to reflect the status of the area as a National Monument instead of a National Natural Landmark. The Board finds that National Monument status increases the importance of the conflicting resources and elevates the level of conflict between surface mining and all the identified conflicting resources at this site. 5. The Board finds that the Geothermal Element of the comprehensive plan precludes this area from use as a source of geothermal energy as stated in the adopted ESEE. Since this use can not occur at this location it should not be identified at this time as being a conflicting resource. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 433 to delete specific reference to geothermal energy as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 6. With the exception of geothermal energy resources, the Board reaffirms its determination in the ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict individually and collectively with surface mining at this site. 7. The Board finds that all conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analysis are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone Site No. 433 for surface mining. Page 28 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 Site No. 453 011 9-oj o 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 451, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include fish and riparian habitat, archeological site, and open space and scenic values. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range and the Board finds that the resource element of the County's comprehensive plan does not show this site within a deer winter range. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 453 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this site. 5. The Board finds that except for deer winter range all other conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analysis are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that the conflicting resources should be protected fully and that the surface mining resource should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone Site No. 453 for surface mining. Site No. 467 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 467, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in an area where scenic values are a significant Page 29 - Exhibit A. Ord. No. 92-044 Tune 10, 1992 0119--0111 Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at th s location. No other conflicting resources are identified in the ESEE analysis for this site. 2. The Board finds that while scenic views throughout Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state -designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board finds that scenic values are not a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface wining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 467 to reflect this determination. 3. The Board finds that the Land Lase and Resource Conflicts sections of the ESEE analysis appropriately indicate that conflicting land uses and scenic values important to the tourism industry and nearby residents would be adversely impacted by the removal of the top of Tethrow Butte, which would result from surface mining at this site. Although other mining sites exist nearby, this site has been identified as the most critical site for retaining the existence of the Tethrow Butte landform, considered a major topographic feature in the area. 4. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that the conflicting uses should be protected fully and that the surface mining resource should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Therefore, based on the above findings the Hoard reaffirms its decision not to zone Site No. 467 for surface mining. Sit -e- No. 475 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 475, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer migration route and in an area with significant scenic values. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is used for migration to and from the Metolius winter range area. While use of the area for deer going to and from the deer winter range is an import -ant resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this site is not within an area with specific location, quantity and quality information of sufficient detail to designate this migration corridor as a significant Gaal 5 Page 30 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0.142 resource. As indicated in Section III of this submittal, ODFW has provided the county with a generalized map of the migration corridor boundaries and the Board has determined that the migration corridor is possibly a significant Goal 5 resource. In accordance with the Goal 5 rule (OAR 660-16-000(5)(b)), the Metolius deer migration corridor has been classified as a "1-B" resource by the county at this time. 3. The Board finds that while scenic views throughout Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state -designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board finds that scenic values are not a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 475 to reflect this determination. 4. The Board finds that the Conflicts Analysis section of the ESEE analysis appropriately indicates that scenic values along Highway 126 would be adversely impacted by dust and traffic resulting from surface mining at this site and wildlife habitat would suffer adverse consequences from mining. However, the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site do not appear to be of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource to warrant full protection of the conflicting uses. 5. The Board finds that through the application of plan policy 15(A) as described in findings k2-4 above, it appears that the ESEE analysis as amended may not support the previous determination to deny protecting the mining resource at this site. However, the Board also finds that there is conflicting information regarding the quantity of cinders available at this location based on recent discussions between county staff. Therefore, the Board determines that this site should be classified as a "1-B" site with respect to mineral resources until such time as adequate information becomes available to determine whether or not this site has sufficient quantity of cinders to be determined a significant resource. The evaluation of this site will be completed along with other deferred sites set forth in Exhibit J, Ordinance 90-025. Site No. 542 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 542, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site Page 31 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0143 is located in a deer migration route. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include open space and scenic values_ 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is used for migration to and from the Metolius winter range area. while use of the area for deer going to and from the deer winter range is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this site is not within an area specifically studied and mapped by ODFW as a deer migration corridor in Deschutes County and this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 542 to delete reference to deer migration route as a resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 3. With the exception of deer migration route, the Board reaffirms its determination in the ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict individually and collectively with surface mining at this site. 4. The Beard finds that except for deer migration route all other conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analysis are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to thein in the sits -specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5_ The Board finds that the ESEE analysis indicates that proponents were interested in developing a pond and an RV park at this site. The current owners have subsequently received approval for a golf course at this location in connection with the development of a clustered subdivision. The Board finds that at this time the area has been altered for the golf course and that mineral and aggregate resources are no longer available in any appreciable quantity at this location. The Board therefore finds that the mineral and aggregate resource is not significant. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone Site No. 542 for surface mining. Sites No. 292, 297, 314, 339, 347, 358, 392, 393. & 541 1. The Board finds that all conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analyses for these sites are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a bevel commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the Page 32 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0144 same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources and uses identified in the ESEE analyses of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that the conflicting resources and uses should be protected fully and that the surface mining resource at each site should not be protected through zoning it for mining. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision not to zone Sites Nos. 292, 2970 3140 339, 347, 358, 392, 393, & 543 for surface mining. B. Sites Zoned For Surface Mining Site No. 24 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 249, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range and an area of special wildlife consideration. Scenic values is the other conflicting resource identified in the ESEE analysis for this site. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range but is in "a high use area" for migration to and from the Metolius winter range area. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) statistics indicate this migration area has the highest deer kill between Bend and Sisters. ODFW continues to request that this site be given "special wildlife use consideration" as a migration corridor. (ODFW has also requested ODOT provide a large culvert beneath Highway 20 as part of a highway widening project to allow deer to pass through this area more safely.) While use of the area for deer going to and from the deer winter range is a very important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that unlike the migration corridors in the la Pine area, this site is not within an area specifically studied and mapped by ODFW as a deer migration corridor and this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 249 to delete the references to deer winter range and special wildlife consideration as significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. The Board finds that paragraph #23, item (d) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for Page 33 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 01.19-0145 this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW. The Board finds that these restrictions are not intended to be applied in areas such as this site that are not within a deer winter range. Therefore, the Board hereby deletes item (d) from the Goal 5 program for this site, thereby eliminating the winter closure requirement between December 1 and April 30. 5. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resource is a significant Goal 5 resource. The Board also finds that this conflicting resource is inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to it in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resource in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range and areas of special wildlife consideration, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resources are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 249 for surface mining. to No. 275 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 275, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resource identified in the ESEE analysis for this site is a nearby golden eagle nesting site. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range but is used for migration to and from the Metolius winter range area. While use of the area for deer going to and from the deer winter range is a very important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that unlike the migration corridors in the LaPine area, this site is not within an area specifically studied and mapped by ODFw as a deer migration corridor and this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. Page 34 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0146 275 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. The Board finds that paragraph $23, item (d) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW. The Board finds that these restrictions are not intended to be applied in areas such as this site that are not within a deer winter range. Therefore, the Board hereby deletes item (d) from the Goal 5 program for this site, thereby eliminating the winter closure requirement between December 1 and April 30. 5. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resource is a significant Goal 5 resource. The Board also finds that this conflicting resource is inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to it in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resource in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 275 for surface mining. Site No. 282 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 282, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer migration route and is zoned as a Wildlife Area (WA combining zone). The other conflicting resource identified in the ESEE analysis for this site is raptor use. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range and the site is not in a WA combining zone. ODFW has indicated that this site is immediately west of the Tumalo deer winter range and some deer use the area during milder winters. While use of the area by deer is an Page 35 - Exhibit A. Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 important wildlife resource value, the Board finds that this use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. 0].19-014(ry 3. While occasional raptor use of the area is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that these sites are not within close proximity to a known nesting site and that occasional use of this site by raptors is not a significant Goal 5 resource. 4. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 282 to delete any references to deer winter range and raptor use as significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this site. 5. The Board finds that paragraph #22, item (f) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW. The Board finds that these restrictions are not intended to be applied in areas such as this site that are not within a deer winter range. Therefore, the Board hereby deleted item (f) from the Goal 5 program for this site, thereby eliminating the winter closure requirement between December 1 and April 30. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer migration route, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 282 for surface mining. Site No. 283 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 283, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer migration route and is zoned as a Wildlife Area (WA combining zone). The other conflicting resource identified in the ESEE analysis for this site is raptor use. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range and the site is not in a WA combining zone. ODFW has indicated that this site is immediately west of the Tumalo deer winter range and some deer use the area during milder winters. While use of the area by deer is an Page 36 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 important wildlife resource value, the Board £ipc}�Zaj.,l}i,g use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. (1�,!°JJ b ��}t 3. While occasional raptor use of the area is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that these sites are not within close proximity to a known nesting site and that occasional use of this site by raptors is not a significant Goal 5 resource. 4. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 283 to delete any references to deer winter range and raptor use as significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this site. 5. The Board finds that paragraph #22, item (f) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW. The Board finds that these restrictions are not intended to be applied in areas such as this site that are not within a deer winter range. Therefore, the Board hereby deletes item (f) from the Goal 5 program for this site, thereby eliminating the winter closure requirement between December 1 and April 30. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer migration route, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 283 for surface mining. Site No. 30 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 303, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range and is zoned as a Wildlife Area (WA combining zone). The other conflicting resource identified in the ESEE analysis for this site is a bald eagle nesting site. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 303 to delete any references to deer winter range as a Page 37 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 01.19-0149 4. The Board finds that paragraph #23, iter (d) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODrW. The Board finds that these restrictions are not intended to be applied in areas such as this site that are not within a deer winter range. Therefore, the Board hereby deletes item (d) from the Goal 5 program for this site, thereby eliminating the winter closure requirement between December 1 and April 30. 5. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ME analysis that the other identified conflicting resource is a significant Goal 5 resource. The Board also finds that this conflicting resource is inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to it in the site --specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resource in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone site No. 303 for surface mining. site No. 304 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 304, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-020, indicates the southern half of the site is in a LM combining zone due to Highway 20. scenic values are therefore identified as a significant Goal, 5 resource conflicting with surface mining. The ESEE analysis also states the Board determined that this site is not within a State Scenic Waterway although there was testimony from State parks to the contrary. 2. The Board finds that the majority of the site is located in the LM combining zone due to Highway 20, however the ESEE incorrectly identifies the southern half instead of the eastern three quarters as being within this zone and the Preliminary Findings incorrectly omit indicating the site is Page 38 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 zoned LM altogether. 0319-01 VV 3. The Board finds that additional testimony from State Parks (See Attachments 8 and 9) now indicates that the Scenic Waterway boundary is at the north end of Tax lot #4800 on Assessorts Map #16-12-31D, and therefore, the entire site is located in a Scenic Waterway designation as it lies within the one quarter mile wide corridor designated Scenic Waterway along the western side of the Deschutes River. 4. The Board finds that by adoption of Ordinance 92 -XXX the Landscape Management combining zone now extends landward for one quarter mile along both sides of the Deschutes River where it is designated a Scenic Waterway and therefore finds that, Site No. 303 is entirely within the LM zone due to its proximity to the Deschutes River. 5. The Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that scenic values are a significant Goal 5 resource conflicting with surface mining at this site. The Board also finds that this conflicting resource is inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to it in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resource in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that ESEE analysis as adopted adequately evaluates the consequences of mining on scenic values and sets forth in paragraph #23, item (b) in the Program to Meet the Goal a provision to screen the mining operations from Tumalo State Park, previously considered to be the northern boundary of the Scenic Waterway designation. The Board finds that it is appropriate in the program to meet the Goal to require mitigation by screening to obscure the view of the project from any portion of the Deschutes River designated Scenic Waterway from Tumalo State Park to the northern boundary of the designation at tax lot #4800, Assessors map #16-12-31D. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 304 to reflect the findings in paragraphs #2-6 above, and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 304 for surface mining. Sites Nos. 305 & 306 1. The ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 305 & 306, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates these sites are located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for these sites include state scenic waterway, open space and Page 39 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 scenic values, and raptor use (golden eagles). 0119-0151 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that these sites are not in a deer winter range. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 305 S 306 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. 4. The Board finds that paragraph #23, item (e) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW. The Board finds that these restrictions are not intended to be applied in areas such as these sites that are not within a deer winter range. Therefore, the Board hereby deletes item (e) from the Goal 5 program for this site, thereby eliminating the winter closure requirement between December 1 and April 30. 5. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Sites Nos. 305 S 306 for surface mining. Site No. 315 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 315, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in an area frequently used by deer. The other conflicting resource identified in the ESEE analysis is the Page 40 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 historic Santiam Wagon Road. 0119-015172 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range but is used for migration to and from the Metolius winter range area. While use of the area for deer going to and from the deer winter range is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this site is not within an area specifically studied and mapped by ODFW as a deer migration corridor in Deschutes County and this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 315 to delete any references to deer use range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. The Board finds that paragraph 823, item (e) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW. The Board finds that these restrictions are not intended to be applied in areas such as this site that are not within a deer winter range or in an officially recognized deer migration corridor. Therefore, the Board hereby deletes item (e) from the Goal 5 program for this site, thereby eliminating the winter closure requirement between December 1 and April 30. 5. The Board finds that the Historic landmarks Commission has determined that the Santiam Wagon Road is not a historic site of sufficient quality to be considered a significant Goal 5 resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 315 to delete any references to the Santiam Wagon Road as a significant Goal resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 315 for surface mining. Site No. 316 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 316, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site Page 41 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 iQ ln, ni-AA :n ,. ,_e _em.__.,....- ,--- 0119-0153 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range but is used for migration to and from the Metolius winter range area. while use of the area for deer going to and from the deer winter range is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this site is not within an area specifically studied and mapped by ODFW as a deer migration corridor in Deschutes County and this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 316 to delete any references to deer use range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. The Board finds that paragraph #23, item (e) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW. The Board finds that these restrictions are not intended to be applied in areas such as this site that are not within a deer winter range or in an officially recognized deer migration corridor. Therefore, the Board hereby deletes item (e) from the Goal 5 program for this site, thereby eliminating the winter closure requirement between December 1 and April 30. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer use range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 316 for surface mining. Site No. 322 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 322, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include raptor use, open space and scenic values, riparian and fish habitat, state scenic waterway and federal wild L scenic river corridor. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Page 42 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 01-19-0154 Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range but is used by deer in the wintertime. While use of the area by deer is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this particular use is not a significant Gaal 5 resource. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 322 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. The Board finds that paragraph #23, item (d) in the Program to Meet the Gaal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW. The Board finds that these restrictions are not intended to be applied in areas such as this site that are not within a deer winter range. Therefore, the Board hereby deletes item (d) from the Goal 5 program for this site, thereby eliminating the winter closure requirement between December 1 and April 30. 5. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site --specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 322 for surface mining. Sites Nos. 355 & 356 1. The ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 355 & 366, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-429, indicates these sites are located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for these sites include open space and raptor use. Page 43 - Exhibit A, Ord. bio. 92-044 June 20, 1992 0119-01575 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that these sites are not in a deer winter range. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 305 s 306 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. 4. The Board finds that paragraph 823, item (d) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW. The Board finds that these restrictions are not intended to be applied in areas such as these sites that are not within a deer winter range. Therefore, the Board hereby deletes item (d) from the Goal 5 program for this site, thereby eliminating the winter closure requirement between October 31 and March 31. 5. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Sites Nos. 305 S 306 for surface mining. Site No. 357 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 357, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include open space and raptor use. Page 44 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0156 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer winter range. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 357 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. The Board finds that paragraph #23, item (d) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW. The Board finds that these restrictions are not intended to be applied in areas such as these sites that are not within a deer winter range. Therefore, the Board hereby deletes item (d) from the Goal 5 program for this site, thereby eliminating the winter closure requirement between October 31 and March 31. 5. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 357 for surface mining. Site No. 361 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 361, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in an area where open space and scenic values are a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this location. No other conflicting resources are identified in the ESEE analysis for this site. Page 45 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 01.19-015 2. The Board finds that the Conflicts Analysis section incorrectly states that the adjacent zoning is EM --20 and EFU-40, whereas the Preliminary Findings section correctly indicates that adjacent land is zoned META -10 and RR -10. The Board also finds that while scenic views throughout Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LK) combining zone or a federal or state -designated wild and scenic river corridor. The Board finds, therefore, that open space and scenic views are not conflicting resources at this site. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 361 to delete any references to open space and scenic values as significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this site. 44. The Board finds that the Social and Environmental Consequences sections of the ESEE analysis inappropriately indicate that mining will have an adverse impact on wildlife since deer and other wildlife have not been identified as conflicting resources in this area. The Board hereby amends the ESEE consequences sections to delete any references to adverse impacts on deer and other wildlife as being a consequence of mining at this site. 5. The Board finds that the Program to Meet the Goal in the ESEE analysis for this site does not include any provisions which are specific requirements necessary to balance the protection of open space and scenic values as significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this site. Therefore, the Board finds that no revisions to the program are necessary as a result of the amendments to the ESEE described above. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 361 for surface mining. Site No. 381 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 381, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2400 Comprehensive Pian by the Page 46 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0159 Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in an area where open space and scenic values are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location. 2. The Board finds that while open space and scenic values throughout Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board finds that open space and scenic values are not significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 381 to reflect this determination. 3. The Board finds that the Social and Environmental Consequences sections of the ESEE analysis appropriately indicate that scenic quality and open space in the vicinity of the site will be impacted by truck traffic, fugitive dust emissions and noise from mining. The Board also finds that these impacts will be low at this location and will be mitigated by environmental controls on the mining operation, such as the DEQ noise and dust standards which the operation must comply with to meet state statutory requirements and which the program to meet the Goal indicates must be met. 4. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 381 to reflect the findings above, and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 381 for surface mining. its No 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 392, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include Great Horned Owl and Bald Eagle use of the site and open space. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Page 47 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10. 1992 01.19-0159 Wildlife has determined that this site is immediately north of the North Pauli,na deer winter range, but is not located within a beer winter range. While use of the area for deer indicated by residents nearby is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this site is not within an area specifically mapped by ODFW as a deer migration corridor or deer winter range in Deschutes County and this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. 3. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis For Site No. 392 to delete the reference to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. With the exception of deer winter range, the Hoard reaffirms its determination in the ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this site. 5. The Board finds that except for deer winter range all other conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analysis are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site --specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the vRineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone site No, 392 for surface mining for fill material only. Site No. 394 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 394, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in an area where open space and scenic values are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location. 2. The Board finds that while open space and scenic values throughout Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values Page 48 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-444 June 10, 1992 01.19-0160 to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board finds that open space and scenic values are not significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 394 to reflect this determination. 3. The Board finds that the Social and Environmental Consequences sections of the ESEE analysis appropriately indicate that scenic quality and open space in the vicinity of the site will be impacted by truck traffic, fugitive dust emissions and noise from mining. The Hoard also finds that these impacts will be low at this location and will be mitigated by environmental controls an the mining operation, such as the DEQ noise and dust standards which the operation must comply with to meet state statutory requirements and which the program to meet the Goal indicates must be met. 4. The Hoard finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 394 to reflect the findings above, and reaffirms its decision to zone Site Ho. 394 for surface mining. Site No. 39 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 395, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Flan by the Hoard in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in an area where open space and scenic values are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location. 2. The Board finds that while open space and scenic values throughout Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board finds that open space and scenic values are not significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site Page 49 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June la, 1992 No. 395 to reflect this determination. 0119--01.61 3. The Board finds that the Social and Environmental Consequences sections of the ESEE analysis appropriately indicate that scenic orality and open space in the vicinity of the site will be impacted by truck traffic, fugitive dust emissions and noise from mining. The Board also finds that these impacts will be low at this location and will be mitigated by environmental controls on the mining Operation, such as the DEQ noise and dust standards which the operation must comply with to meet state statutory requirements and which the program to meet the Goal indicates must be met. 4. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 395 to reflect the findings above, and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 395 for surface mining. Site N 1. The ESEE analysis for Site NO. 408, adapted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2404 Comprehensive Flan by the Board in Appendix A of ordinance 94-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include antelope and sage grouse range. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 408 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site and to reflect that the ODFW has indicated that special regulations may be required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat. 3. With the exception of deer winter range, the Shard reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface training and the Page 50 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 Mune 10, 1992 protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 0-119-0162 4. The Board finds that the Program to Meet the Gaal at this site refers to a winter closure. from October 31 through March 31 (item 'd' in paragraph #22) to protect the deer winter range resource. The Board finds that this element of the program should be replaced with a requirement that ODFW be consulted at the time mining operations commence or expand to determine whether specific requirements regarding sage habitat are necessary. The Board also finds that this revision to the program is consistent with requirements in the County's zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis to be conserved and protected and where mitigation is provided that consultation with ODFW take place.grouse habitat are necessary. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Hoard finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources whale also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 408 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 408 for surface mining. Sites Nos. 413 & 41 1. The ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 413 & 414, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-429, indicates these sites are located in an antelope range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include deer winter range, open space and scenic values. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that these sites are near but not within an antelope range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Hos. 413 & 414 to delete any references to antelope range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 3. With the exception of antelope range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these Page 51 -- Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 01]9-0163 conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in he comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 4. The Board finds that the Program to Meet the Goal at these sites does not contain any requirements specific to protecting the antelope range resource and therefore no modifications to the program are required by the deletion of the antelope range as a conflicting resource. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding antelope range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 413 & 414 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Sites Nos. 413 & 414 for surface mining. tes Nos. 415. 416. 417. 41 1. The ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 415, 416, 417, 418 & 419, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates these sites are located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for these sites include antelope and sage grouse range, open space and scenic values. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that these sites are near but not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 415, 416, 417, 418 & 419 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. 3. The Board finds that ODFW has indicated that special regulations may be required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat and recommend they be consulted prior to mining at this site. The Board also finds that ODFW has identified an antelope winter range which these sites are located within. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analyses to add antelope winter range as an additional resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. However, the Page 52 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0164 Board also finds that the level of conflict should be low since there is very little use of these sites for highway construction during the winter, and that ODFW has not recommended any additional measures to further protect this resource. 4. With the exception of dear winter range, and with the addition of the antelope winter range the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5. The Board finds that the Program to Meet the Goal at these sites refers to a winter closure from October 31 through March 31 (item 'd' in paragraph 422) to protect the deer winter range resource. The Board finds that this element of the program should be replaced with a requirement that ODFW be consulted at the time mining operations commence or expand to determine whether specific requirements regarding sage grouse habitat are necessary. The Board also finds that this revision to the program is consistent with requirements in the County's zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis to be conserved and protected and where mitigation is provided that consultation with ODFW take place. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 415, 416, 417, 418 & 419 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Sites Nos. 415, 4161 417, 418 & 419 for surface mining. to No. 421 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 421, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include antelope and sage grouse range, open space and scenic values. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 421 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site and to reflect that the ODFW has indicated that Page 53 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 01-19-0165 special regulations may be required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat. 3. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 4. The Board finds that the Program to Meet the Goal at this site refers to a winter closure from October 31 through March 31 (item 'd' in paragraph #22) to protect the deer winter range resource. The Board finds that this element of the program should be replaced with a requirement that 0DFW be consulted at the time mining operations commence or expand to determine whether specific requirements regarding sags: grouse habitat are necessary. The Board also finds that this revision to the program is consistent with requirements in the County's zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis to be conserved and protected and where mitigation is provided that consultation with ODFw take place. S. The: Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 421 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone site No. 421 for surface mining. Site No. 432 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 432, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer migration route s. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is in an area of moderate deer use for migration. while use of the area for Page 54 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 011-9-0-166 deer going to and from the deer winter range is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this site is not within an area specifically studied and mapped by ODFW as a deer migration corridor in Deschutes County and this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. The Board also finds that the ESEE analysis for Site No. 432 should be amended to delete any references to deer migration route as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface raining at this site . 3. The Board finds that the Program to Meet the Goal at this site does not contain any elements specific to the identification and analysis of a deer migration route as a conflicting resource and that revisions to the Goal program are not necessary, 4. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource, Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 432 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 432 for surface mining. Sites Nos, 441-443 1. The ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 441-443, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2004 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates these sites are located in a deer use area. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include fish and riparian habitat, and open space and scenic values. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that these sites are not in a deer winter range but are used for migration to and from the Metolfus winter range area and are used heavily in the spring and fall by other deer. While use of the area for deer going to and from the deer winter range and for forage is a very important resource value for wildlife, the Hoard finds that these sites are not within a deer winter range, The Board also finds that these sites are within an area mapped by ODFW during this periodic review as a deer migration corridor and this particular use is possibly a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with mining at this site. As stated in Section III of this submittal, the Metolius deer migration corridor Fade 55 -- Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 is being classified as a "i --B" resource with respect to Gaal 5 until additional information regarding the specific location, quantity and quality of the resource is available. 3. The Board finds that paragraph #23, item {d} in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW for deer winter ranges. The Board finds that item (d) should be deleted due to the deletion of deer winter range as a conflicting resource and the deferred status of the deer migration corridor. 4. With the exception of deer use, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with bath the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5_ The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer use, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 441-443 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Sites Hos. 441-443 for surface mining. Sys Has. 459 & 469 1. The ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 459 & 469, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of ordinance 90-029, indicates these sites are located in a deer winter range and an area of high deer use. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include open space and scenic values. 2_ The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that these sites are not in a deer winter range but are used for migration to and from the Metolius winter range area and are used heavily at other times by deer. while use of the area for deer going to and Page 55 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 from the deer winter range and for forage is a 0,very 31197mQuat resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that these sites are not within a deer winter range. The Board also finds that these sites are within an area mapped by ODFW during this periodic review as a deer migration corridor and this particular use is possibly a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with mining at this site. As stated in Section III of this submittal, the Metolius deer migration corridor is being classified as a "1-B" resource with respect to Goal 5 until additional information regarding the specific location, quantity and quality of the resource is available. 3. The Board finds that the second sentence of paragraph #22, item (d) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site prohibits certain mining activities between December 1 through April 30 "to protect deer populations..." The Board finds that item (d) should be amended to delete this sentence due to the removal of deer winter range as a conflicting resource and the deferred status of the deer migration corridor. 4. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range and area of high deer use, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 459 & 469 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Sites Nos. 459 & 469 for surface mining. Site No. 461 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 461, adopted as part of the Deschutes county Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site Page 57 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 9119-0169 is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include raptor use, fish and riparian habitat, open space and scenic values, and federal and state wild/ scenic river corridor designations. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 461 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 3. with the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with Moth the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 4. The Beard finds that the Program to Meet the Goal at this site refers to a winter closure for blasting and processing between December 1 and April 30 to protect the deer winter range resource. Due to deletion of deer winter range as a conflicting resource, the Board determines that item (d) is hereby removed from the list of ESEE conditions in paragraph #23. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 461 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone site No. 461 for surface mining. Site No. 465 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 455, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in an area where open space and scenic values are significant Goal. 5 resources in conflict with surface mining Page 58 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 at this location. 01,19-01170 2. The Board finds that while open space and scenic values throughout Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state designated wild and scenic river corridor, Therefore, the Board finds that open space and scenic values are not significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 465 to ]reflect this determination. 3. The Board finds that the social and Environmental Consequences sections of the ESEE analysis appropriately indicate that scenic quality and open space in the vicinity of the site will be impacted by truck traffic, fugitive dust emissions and noise from mining. The Board also finds that these impacts will be mitigated by environmental controls on the mining operation, such as the DEQ noise and dust standards which the operation must comply with to meet state statutory requirements and which the program to meet the Goal indicates must be met. 4. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 465 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 455 for surface mining. Site No, 466 I. The ESEE analysis for Site No, 466, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90--829, indicates this site is located in an area where open space and scenic values are significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location. 2. The Board finds that while open space and scenic values throughout Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Page 59 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-844 June 10, 1992 0119-0171 Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board finds that open space and scenic values are not. significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 466 to reflect this determination. 3. The Board finds that the Social and Environmental Consequences sections of the ESEE analysis appropriately indicate that scenic quality and open space in the vicinity of the site will be impacted by truck traffic, fugitive dust emissions and noise from mining. The Board also finds that these impacts will be mitigated by environmental controls on the mining operation, such as the DEQ noise and dust standards which the operation must comply with to meet state statutory requirements and which the program to meet the Goal indicates must be met. 4. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 466 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 466 for surface mining. Site No. 488 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 488, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. state scenic Waterway and scenic values are the other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and wildlife has determined that this site is not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 488 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 3. The Board finds that by adoption of Ordinance No. 90 -XXX the LM combining zone along sections of the Deschutes River designated as Scenic Waterway is one-quarter male in width along both sides of the river. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for this site to indicate that this site is Bade 60 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0172 within a LM zone, adding further importance to scenic values already identified and analyzed as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 4. With the exception of deer winter range, the Hoard reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5. The Board finds that the Program to Meet the Goal at the Highland and Cline Falls site locations does not include any specific provisions to protect the deer winter range resource, such as winter closure. The Board finds therefore, that no changes in the Goal program are necessary. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 488 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 488 for surface mining. Sate No. 498 I. The ESEE analysis For site No. 498, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range with significant scenic values. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include antelope range and open space. 2. The Hoard finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 498 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 3. The Board finds that while scenic values throughout Page 61 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10. 1992 01-19-0173 Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board finds that scenic values are not significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 498 to reflect this determination. 4. The Board finds that this site is also located to a sage grouse range. ODFW has indicated that sage grouse use this area as a lek site for breeding, increasing the importance of the site for sage grouse habitat during part of the year. ODFW has indicated that special regulations may be required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat and recommends they be consulted prior to mining at this site. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 498 to add sage grouse habitat as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. 5. with the exception of deer winter range and scenic values, and with the addition of sage grouse habitat as a significant Goal 5 resource the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the Program to Meet the Goal at this site refers to a winter closure from October 31 through March 31 (item 'd' in paragraph #23) to protect the deer winter range resource. The Board finds that this statement should be replaced a requirement that ODFW be consulted at the time mining operations commence or expand to determine whether specific requirements regarding sage grouse habitat are necessary. The Board also finds that this revision to the program is consistent with requirements in the County's zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis to be conserved and protected and where mitigation is provided that consultation with ODFW take place. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 498 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 498 for surface mining. Page 62 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 Sites Nos 99 & 50 1,19-0174 1. The ESEE analyses for Sites Nos. 499 & 500, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Pian by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicate these sites are located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analyses for these sites include antelope range, open space and scenic values. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that these sites are not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analyses for Sites Nos. 499 & 500 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. 3. The Board finds that ODFW has indicated these sites are located in a sage grouse range. ODFW has also indicated that special regulations may be ,required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat and recommend they be consulted prior to mining at this site. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analyses for sites Nos. 499 & 500 to add sage grouse range as a significant Coal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. 4. With the exception of deer winter range, and with the addition of sage grouse habitat a significant Goal 5 resource, the Hoard reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analyses that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Gaal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to thea in the site-specific ESEE analyses for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5. The Board finds that the Program to Meet the Goal at these sites refers to a winter closure from October 31 through March 31 (item •d' in paragraph 423) to protect the deer winter range resource. The Board finds that this program element should be replaced with a requirement that ODFW be consulted at the time mining operations commence or expand to determine whether specific requirements regarding sage grouse habitat are necessary. The Board also finds that this revision to the program is consistent with requirements in the County,s zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis to be conserved and protected and where mitigation is provided that consultation with ODFW take place. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer Page 63 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 winter range, are still of sufficient importan e— eIatQ e7R the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 499 & 500 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Sites Nos. 499 & 500 for surface mining. Sites Nos. 501 & 503 1. The ESEE analyses for Sites Nos. 501 & 503, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicate these sites are located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analyses for these sites include sage grouse range, antelope range, open space and scenic values. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that these sites are not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analyses for Sites Nos. 501 & 503 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. The Board determines therefore that the program to meet the Goal for these sites is hereby amended to delete item (d) which refers to a winter closure from October 31 through March 31 to protect the deer winter range resource. 3. The Board finds that ODFW has indicated that special regulations may be required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat and recommend they be consulted prior to mining at this site. As discussed in Section III of this submittal, the county is adopting a "Habitat Areas for Sensitive Birds" ESEE as part of the current periodic review, including a comprehensive plan map identifying known strutting grounds for sage grouse. This Bird ESEE sets forth a program, through the creation of a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone for identifying and protecting strutting grounds from conflicting uses, including surface mining. Although these mining sites are not identified as presently being within one-quarter mile of a strutting ground, it is possible that a strutting ground could be established in the future in proximity to these sites. For this reason, the Board determines that the program to meet the Goal for these sites is hereby amended with a new item (d) to require that Page 64 - Exhibit A. Ord. No. 92-044 Tune 10, 1992 9119-91'76 mining activity which requires a permit from Deschutes County be conducted in a manner which is consistent with the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone. The Board finds that this revision to the program is consistent with requirements in the County's zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis to be conserved and protected and, where mitigation is provided, that consultation with ODFw take place. 4. with the exception of deur winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analyses that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analyses for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences stili should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 501 & 503 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Sites Nos. 501 & 503 for surface mining. iter Nos. 505. 506 & 1. The ESEE analyses for Sites Nos, 505, 506 & 522, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of ordinance 90-029, indicate these sites are located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analyses for these sites include sage grouse range, antelope range, open space and scenic values. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that these sites are not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analyses for Sites Nos. 505, 506 & 522 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. The Board determines therefore that the program to meet the Goal for Page 65 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0?19-0177 these sites is hereby amended to delete item (d) which refers to a winter closure from October 31 through March 31 to protect the deer winter range resource. 3. The Board finds that ODFW has indicated that special regulations may be required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat and recommend they be consulted prior to mining at this site. As discussed in Section III of this submittal, the county is adapting a "Habitat Areas for Sensitive Birds" ESEE as part of the current periodic review, including a comprehensive plan map identifying known strutting grounds for sage grouse. This ESEE sets forth a program, through the creation of a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone, for identifying and protecting strutting grounds from conflicting uses, including surface mining. Although these mining sites are not identified as presently being within one-quarter mile of a strutting ground, it is possible that a strutting ground could be established in the future in proximity to these sites. For this reason, the Board determines that the program to meet the Goal for these sites is hereby amended with a new item (d) to require that mining activity which requires a permit from Deschutes County be conducted in a manner which is consistent with the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone. The Board finds that this revision to the program is consistent with requirements in the County's zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis to be conserved and protected and, where mitigation is provided, that consultation with ODFW take place. 4. The Board finds that ESEE analyses should be amended to add antelope winter range as an additional resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. However, the Board also finds that the level of conflict should be low since there is very little use of these sites for highway construction during the winter, and that ODFW has not recommended any additional measures to further protect this resource. 5. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analyses that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analyses for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to Page 66 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 I.'.19 75 the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the min0�r75and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 505, 506 S 522 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Sites Nos. 505, 506 S 522 for surface mining. Site No. 50 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 508, adopted as part of the Deschutes county Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include antelope and sage grouse ranges. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analyses for Site No. 508 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. The Board determines therefore that the program to meet the Goal for this site is hereby amended to delete item (d) which refers to a winter closure from October 31 through March 31 to protect the deer winter range resource. 3. The Board finds that ODFW has indicated that special regulations may be required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat and recommend they be consulted prior to mining at this site. As discussed in Section III of this submittal, the county is adopting a "Habitat Areas for Sensitive Birds" ESEE as part of the current periodic review, including a comprehensive plan map identifying known strutting grounds for sage grouse. This ESEE sets forth a program, through the creation of a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone, for identifying and protecting strutting grounds from conflicting uses, including surface mining. Although this mining site is not identified as presently being within one-quarter mile of a strutting ground, it is Possible that a strutting ground could be established in the future in proximity to these sites. For this reason, the Board determines that the program to meet the Goal for this site is hereby amended with a new item (d) to require that mining activity which requires a permit from Deschutes County be conducted in a manner which is consistent with the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone. The Board finds Page 67 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 79 that this revision to the program is consis � n 9 wQtt requirements in the County's zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis to be conserved and protected and, where mitigation is provided, that consultation with 00FW take place. 4. The Board also finds that ODFW has identified an antelope winter range which this site is located within. The Board finds that the ESEE analysis should be amended to add antelope winter range as an additional resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. However, the Board also finds that the level of conflict should be low since there is very little use of this site for highway construction during the winter, and that ODFW has not recommended any additional measures to further protect this resource. 5. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with bath the protection afforded to them in the site--specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 508 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone site No. 508 for surface mining. Site No. 515 .1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 515, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include antelope and sage grouse ranges. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not within a deer Page 68 - Exhibit A, Ord. No, 92--044 June 1.0, 1992 0119.0180 winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analyses for Site No. 515 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. The Board determines therefore that the program to meet the Goal for this site is hereby amended to delete item, (d) which refers to a winter closure from October 31 through March 31 to protect the deer winter range resource. 3. The Board finds that ODFW has indicated that special regulations may be required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat and recommend they be consulted prior to mining at this site. As discussed in Section Ill of this submittal, the county is adopting a "habitat Areas for Sensitive Birds}1 ESEE as part of the current periodic review, including a comprehensive plan map identifying known strutting grounds for sage grouse. This ESEE seta forth a program, through the creation of a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone, for identifying and protecting strutting grounds from conflicting uses, including surface mining. Although this mining site is not identified as presently being within one-quarter mile of a strutting ground, it is possible that a strutting ground could be established in the future in proximity to these sites. For this reason, the Board determines that the program to meet the Goal for this site is hereby amended with a new item (d) to require that mining activity which requires a permit from Deschutes County be conducted in a manner which is consistent with the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining zone. The Board finds that this revision to the program is consistent with requirements .in the County's zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis to be conserved and protected and, where mitigation is provided, that consultation with ODFW take place. 4. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface raining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 5. The Board finds that the conflicting resources ,identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are .important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the Page 69 -- Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-0181 conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resource while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for site No. 515 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone site No. 515 for surface mining. Site No. 5 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 524, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range and in an area where scenic values are a significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include antelope and sage grouse ranges and open space. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analyses for Site No. 524 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. The Board determines therefore that the program to meet the Goal for this site is hereby amended to delete item (d) which refers to a winter closure from October 31 through March 31 to protect the deer winter range resource. 3. The Board finds that ODFW has indicated that special regulations may be required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat and recommend they be consulted prior to mining at this site. As discussed in Section III of this submittal, the county is adopting a r'Habitat Areas for Sensitive Birds" ESEE as part of the: current periodic review, including a comprehensive plan map identifying known strutting grounds for sage grouse. This ESEE sets forth a program, through the creation of a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone, for identifying and protecting strutting grounds from conflicting uses, including surface mining. Although this mining site is not identified as presently being within one-quarter mile of a strutting ground, it is possible that a strutting ground could be established in the future in proximity to these sites. For this reason, the Board determines that the program to meet the Goal for this site is hereby amended with a new item {d} to require that mining activity which requires a permit from Deschutes County be conducted in a manner which is consistent with the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone. The Board finds that this revision to the program is consistent with requirements in the County's zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values Page 70 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis and protected and, where mitigation is consultation with 0DFW take place. to be conserved provided, that 4. The Board finds that while scenic values throughout Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Bnard finds that scenic values are not a significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location and hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 524 to reflect this determination. 5. With the exception of deer winter range and scenic values, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range and scenic values, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 524 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 524 for surface mining. git ...N4... 528 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 528, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of ordinance 90029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range and in an area where scenic values are a significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface vining at this location. The other conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis for this site include antelope range and open space. Page 71 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 0119-9183 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analyses for Site No. 508 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant. Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. The Board determines therefore that the program to meet the Goal for this site is hereby amended to delete item (d) which refers to a winter closure from October 31 through March 31 to protect the deer winter range resource. 3. The Board finds that while scenic values throughout. Deschutes County are extremely important to residents and visitors, and are therefore beneficial values to property owners, residents and the tourism economy of the county, this site is not located within a Landscape Management (LM) combining zone or a federal or state designated wild and scenic river corridor. Therefore, the Board finds that scenic values are not a significant Goal 5 resources in conflict with surface mining at this location and that the ESEE analysis for Site No. 528 should be amended to reflect this determination. 4. The Board finds that ODFW has indicated that special regulations may be required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat and recommend they be consulted prior to mining at this site. As discussed in Section 111 of this submittal, the county is adopting a "Habitat Areas for Sensitive Birds" ESEE as part of the current periodic review, including a comprehensive plan map identifying known strutting grounds for sage grouse. This ESEE sets forth a program, through the creation of a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone, for identifying and protecting strutting grounds from conflicting uses, including surface mining. Although this mining site is not identified as presently being within one-quarter mile of a strutting ground, it is possible that a strutting ground could be established in the future in proximity to these sites. For this reason, the Hoard determines that the program to meet the Goal for this site is hereby amended with a new item (d) to require that mining activity which requires a permit from Deschutes County be conducted in a manner which is consistent with the sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone. The Board finds that this revision to the program is consistent with requirements in the Countyrs zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis to be conserved and protected and, where mitigation is provided, that consultation with ODFW take place. 5. The Board also finds that ODFW has identified an antelope winter range which this site is located within. The Board finds that the ESEE analysis should be amended to add antelope winter range as an additional resource in conflict Page 72 -- Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92044 June 10, 1992 01.1:7-0184 with surface mining at this site. However, the Board also finds that the level of conflict should be low since there is very little use of this site for highway construction during the winter, and that ODFW has not recommended any additional measures to further protect this resource. 6. With the exception of deer winter range and scenic values, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adapted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Hoard also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 7. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. There€ore, the Board Na. 528 to reflect decision to zone Site 5 -It -e. No. 529 hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site the findings above and reaffirms its No. 528 for surface mining. 1. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 529, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer migration route. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is in an area of moderate deer use for migration. While use of the area for deer going to and from the deer winter range is an important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this site is not within an area specifically studied and mapped by ODFW as a deer migration corridor in Deschutes County and this particular use is not a significant Goal 5 resource. The Board also finds that the ESEE analysis for Site No. 529 should be amended to delete any references to deer migration route as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at this site . 3. The Board finds that the Program to Meet the Goal at this site refers to a winter closure from October 31 through Page 73 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 01,19-0185 March 31 (item 'd' in paragraph #22) to protect the deer migration route resource and that this element of the program should be deleted. 4. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences stili should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 529 to reflect the findings about in paragraphs #2-3 and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 529 for surface mining. Site No. 533 I. The ESEE analysis for Site No. 533, adopted as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by the Board in Appendix A of Ordinance 90-029, indicates this site is located in a deer winter range. The other conflicting resource identified in the ESEE analysis for this site is antelope range. 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not within a deer winter range. The Board hereby amends the ESEE analyses for Site No. 508 to delete any references to deer winter range as a significant Goal 5 resource in conflict with surface mining at these sites. The Board determines therefore that the program to meet the Gaal, for this site is hereby amended to delete item (d) which refers to a winter closure from October 31. through March 31 to protect the deer winter range resource. 3. The Board finds that ODFW has indicated that special regulations may be required in the future to protect sage grouse habitat and recommend they be consulted prior to mining at this site. As discussed in Section III of this submittal, the county is adopting a "Habitat Areas for Sensitive Birds' ESEE as part of the current periodic review, including a comprehensive plan map identifying known strutting grounds for sage grouse. This ESEE sets forth a program, through the creation of a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone, for identifying and protecting strutting grounds from conflicting uses, including surface mining. Although this mining site is not identified as presently being within one-quarter mile of a strutting ground, it is Page 74 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 Q'19-0186 possible that a strutting ground could be established in the future in proximity to these sites. For this reason, the Board determines that the program to meet the Goal for this site is hereby amended with a new item (d) to require that mining activity which requires a permit from Deschutes County be conducted in a manner which is consistent with the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone. The Board finds that this revision to the program is consistent with requirements in the County's zoning ordinance for site plan operation standards. These standards require wildlife values and habitat specified in the ESEE analysis to be conserved and protected and, where mitigation is provided, that consultation with ODFW take place. 4. The Board also finds that ODFW has identified an antelope winter range which this site is located within. The Board finds that the ESEE analysis should be amended to add antelope winter range as an additional resource in conflict with surface mining at this site. However, the Board also finds that the level of conflict should be low since there is very little use of this site for highway construction during the winter, and that ODFW has not recommended any additional measures to further protect this resource. 5. With the exception of deer winter range, the Board reaffirms its determination in the adopted ESEE analysis that the other identified conflicting resources are significant Goal 5 resources. The Board also finds that these conflicting resources are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the same resources in other locations in the county. 6. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site, excluding deer winter range, are still of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, the Board hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 533 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 533 for surface mining. Site No. 543 The ESEE analysis for Sites Nos. 543, adopted as part of Page 75 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 the Deschutes County Year 2000 Board in Appendix A of ordinance is located in a deer winter range. Comprehensive Plan by e 90-029, indicates this site 2. The Board finds that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site is not in a deer fainter range but is used for migration to and from the Metolius winter range area and is used at other times by deer. While use of the area for deer going to and from the deer winter ranee and for forage is a very important resource value for wildlife, the Board finds that this site is not within a deer winter range. The Board also finds that unlike the -migration corridors in the LaPine area, this site is not within an area specifically studied and mapped by ODFW as a deer migration corridor and this particular use is not a significant Coal 5 resource in conflict with mining at this site. 3. The Board finds that paragraph #23, item (c) in the Program to Meet the Goal section of the ESEE analysis for this site includes a provision to meet wildlife restrictions recommended by ODFW for deer winter ranges. The Board finds that this element of the program should be amended to state that prior to commencement of new operations or expansion of existing mining activity, ODFW shall be consulted to deter -mine if recommendations to protect deer habitat should be implemented. 4. The Board finds that the conflicting uses identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are still of sufficient importance relative to the nineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses while also protecting the mineral and aggregate (resource. Therefore, the Hoard hereby amends the ESEE analysis for Site No. 543 to reflect the findings above and reaffirms its decision to zone Site No. 543 for surface mining. Sites Nos. 248, 252, 277, 293, 294, 296, 324 3 9, 331, 332, 333. .335, 336._3.4.2. 345, 346, 36$, 370, 379, 390, 404, 405, 426.426. 427,&482&482�� 1. The Board finds that all conflicting resources identified in the adopted ESEE analyses for these sites are inventoried and protected in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to a level commensurate with both the protection afforded to them in the site-specific ESEE analysis for surface mining and the protection afforded the Page 76 -- Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992 same resources in other locations in the county. 01,19-0188 2. The Board finds that the conflicting resources identified in the ESEE analysis of this site are of sufficient importance relative to the mineral and aggregate resource, that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resource are important relative to each other. The Board finds that the ESEE consequences still should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses and to protect the conflicting resources while also protecting the mineral and aggregate resource. Therefore, based on the above findings the Board reaffirms its decision to zone Sites Nos. 248, 252, 277, 293, 294, 296, 324, 3301 331, 3321 333, 335, 336, 342, 345, 346, 366, 368, 370, 379, 390, 391, 404, 405, 426, 427, & 482 for surface mining. Page 77 - Exhibit A, Ord. No. 92-044 June 10, 1992