Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-23183-Ordinance No. 90-029 Recorded 7/18/199090-23183 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DES An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as Amended, by Adoption of Site - Specific ESEE Determinations on Mineral and Aggregate Inventory Sites, Amending Zoning Maps to Reflect ESEE Determinations, Declaring an Emergency and Setting an Effective Date. REVIEWED L[C- ' CCe!jNSEL CO * 1;�•,,' ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. FINDINGS. Procedural Background 1. On December 6, 1988, the Deschutes County Board of Commis- sioners (Board) adopted by Ordinance No. 88-039 the Deschutes County mineral and aggregate resource inventory and supporting recommendations of the hearings officer and staff. Adoption of that ordinance marked completion of the first step in gaining acknowledgement pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 5 of the mineral and aggregate portion of Deschutes County's comprehensive plan, which had been remanded to the County pursuant to Coats v. LCDC. 2. Beginning in February 1989, the Planning Commission held hearings on individual inventoried sites to gather public input on conflicts between mineral and aggregate resources and other Goal 5 resources or land uses, and on the econo- mic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of protecting or not protecting the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses. The Planning Commission completed its hearings in April 1989, and made recommendations to the Board concerning whether or not the mineral and aggregate resource should be protected through zoning. 3. Starting in May of 1989, the Board of County Commissioners held hearings on individual inventory sites to make final ESEE decisions. Between May and July, hearings were held and zoning decisions made on the several most controversial sites. 4. Starting in August of 1989, the Board held ESEE hearings were held on eight occasions on the remaining sites. The 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) -19© to -1 „ 1093 hearings were held to provide the Board with sufficient information to allow the Board to determine under the Goal 5 administrative rule whether or not to zone the site for surface mining and what restrictions, if any, should be applied to mining operations and conflicting resources or land uses. Through these hearings and review of the exten- sive record developed through the Planning Commission hear- ings, the Board has acquired extensive knowledge and exper- tise in the area of surface mining impacts and conflict resolution. 5. In October 1989, zoning decisions were made on sites that remained on the inventory. Before and after the hearing, certain sites were removed from consideration by the Board, and no ESEE decision was made on them, due to their location on federal lands, their on-site use for utility or irriga- tion district purposes, or their sole use as storage sites. 6. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt the ESEE deter- minations and zoning decisions made by the Board on those sites remaining on the inventory, and zoning maps, as part of the County's comprehensive plan element for minerals and aggregate. Compliance with Other Goals 7. GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. The Board finds that Goal 1 is complied with by the extensive notice given and public hearings held at all stages of this Goal 5 process and by the provisions for citizen participation at the site plan stage of surface mine approval. Hearings with appropriate notice were held at the inventory stage, as set forth in the findings for Ordinance No. 90- 025, for the amendment of the comprehensive plan for the adoption of surface mining goal and policies, as set forth in Ordinance No. 90-028, for the ESEE determinations on each individual site on the inventory, as set forth above, and on the surface mining zoning ordinance adopted by Ordinance No. 90-014. In instances where notice was deemed to be inade- quate, the County re -noticed hearings and re -held the hearings. In this ESEE process, all proposed SM site owners and all landowners within a 1/2 mile radius of proposed surface mines were given individual written notice of the hearing date for testimony on the proposed surface mine zoning. The ordinance by which the ESEE decisions will be imple- mented provides for continuing citizen participation. New mining operations or expansion of existing operations must gain site plan approval before mining can begin. The comprehensive plan surface mining goal and policies state 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) T GU91 Al , "1094 that site plan review must be undertaken only with the opportunity for full citizen participation. Furthermore, the surface mining zoning ordinance requires that before site plan approval can be granted, the mining operator must demonstrate as part of the public hearing process that applicable federal, state, and local environmental regula- tions are or can be met. 8. GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING. Statewide planning Goal 2 is satisfied by: (a) the adoption of comprehensive plan goal and policies for surface mining; (b) the adoption of a zoning ordinance that will implement the ESEE decisions through clear and objective standards; (c) by consultation with experts in the fields of geology, mining and reclama- tion, fish and wildlife, with federal land management agencies and state highway division personnel, and by consultation with representatives of the mining industry and neighborhood groups; and (d) by the extensive factual record generated by the inventory and ESEE process and the site specific treatment of each site. 9. GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS. Goal 3 is satisfied by recognition in the ESEE process that farm uses can be compatible with surface mining zoning as an interim (prior to extraction) or secondary (after resource depletion) use relative to mining of a mineral or aggregate source. The surface mining ordinance allows agricultural uses in Surface Mining (SM) and Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) zones while eliminating other uses, except forest and geothermal uses. Allowing farm uses in the SM zone preserves agricul- tural lands for farm uses, recognizing that farm uses do not irretrievably commit the surface of mineral and aggregate resources to conflicting uses. 10. GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS. Goal 4 is satisfied in a similar manner to Goal 3 by allowing for forest uses in the SM and SMIA zones to the exclusion of most other uses, except surface mining and related activities. 11. GOAL 6 - AIR, LAND, AND WATER RESOURCES. Goal 6 is satis- fied by the requirement in the surface mining zoning ordi- nance that before site plan approval for a new or expanded mining operation can occur, the applicant must demonstrate that the mining operation will meet all applicable federal, state, and local standards that protect air, land, and water resources. In addition, in individual cases in the ESEE process, conditions have been included that will assure that applicable environmental standards will be met at particular sites. 12. GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS. Not applicable. 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) (31 `? 2 toll - 1095 13. GOAL 8 - RECREATION NEEDS. Providing for recreational needs is important to the Deschutes County economy. Open space, scenic views, fish and wildlife and their habitat, and scenic waterways are important amenities in the enhancement of recreational opportunities in the County. Goal 8 has been satisfied by the attention given to preservation of such values in this Goal 5 process. A policy has been adopted in the surface mining comprehen- sive plan prohibiting SM zoning in critical and sensitive resource areas (including fish and wildlife habitats, wetlands and riparian areas, recreation and open space areas, and archaeological and historic sites) when such areas and resources have been evaluated in light of all comprehensive plan goals and policies and are determined through the Goal 5 process to conflict with the SM site and to be of such importance relative to an inventoried mineral and aggregate resource site as to require complete protec- tion. In addition, in the individual ESEE determinations the importance of conflicting Goal 5 values has been recog- nized in limiting surface mining operations to accommodate open space, scenic, fish and wildlife and scenic waterway values. 14. GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE. Minerals and aggregate are a commodity having a market value. As such, excavation of minerals and aggregate add wealth to the state and local economy. Minerals and aggregate also promote economic well- being in that they are an essential raw material in con- structing infrastructure and buildings. Goal 9 has been satisfied by the preservation through the Goal 5 process of significant amounts of mineral and aggregate sufficient to meet demand on the County during the applicable twenty-year planning cycle. All mineral resources have economic value as commodities. The state and local economy is strengthened by the preserva- tion of supply, which allows for the creation of wealth from the marketing of the product. This in turn creates job opportunities in the extraction, processing, and marketing of such products. Some mineral products found in the county, such as diatomaceous earth and pumice, have economic value chiefly for commodity purposes. Others, such as aggregate, cinders, and select fill resources have addi- tional economic value in the purposes they serve for the community at large. Aggregate, select fill, and to a lesser degree, cinders, are essential for the construction of roads and highways and are an essential ingredient for building materials such as concrete. As such, these materials are vital to the con- tinued growth and maintenance of the community. At the same 4 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) )19 time, local deposits of aggregate and dirt are limited, and the availability of those deposits is threatened by incom- patible development, such as rural residential development. Moreover, because of their bulk, aggregate and dirt resources would be expensive to transport into the area. Preservation of sufficient local aggregate and dirt supplies is therefore an important step in encouraging growth of economic opportunities in the County. 15. GOAL 10 - HOUSING. Aggregate and select fill are essential materials to the construction of housing in the area. Through the Goal 5 process, aggregate and select fill sources have been identified and sufficient quantities of quality material have been preserved to meet regional demand for housing material. The livability of existing residen- tial uses near proposed surface mines has been protected through the ESEE process and through the zoning ordinance provisions regulating traffic, noise, dust, and visual impacts of surface mining. Although new residential and other uses will be limited in the SMIA zone surrounding SM zones, there is still plenty of undeveloped land in the county to support such uses. 16. GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES. Not applicable. 17. GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION. Goal 12 has been met by the identification and preservation of sufficient quantities of aggregate and cinders to meet the area's demand for mate- rials for road construction and maintenance. Aggregate, and to a lesser extent, cinders, are essential to building and maintaining safe roads and highways. 18. GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION. Mineral and aggregate resources are bulky and consume great amounts of energy to transport. Goal 13 has been met by the preservation of sufficient quantities of aggregate resources that supplies of inventoried minerals and aggregate need not be trans- ported into the County from outside the area for use in the County. 19. GOALS 14 - 19. Not applicable. Compliance with Goal 5 20. Goal 5 is met through the amendment of the comprehensive plan by the addition of the surface mining element (Inven- tory, Goals and Policies, site-specific ESEE decisions), the adoption of the surface mining ordinance, and the zoning and mapping of individual sites to allow or not allow surface mining in a manner to protect the economic, social, environ- mental, and energy needs of the citizens of Deschutes County with respect to mineral and aggregate and the conflicting 5 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) W_ 011-911 101 -, 100-x' Goal 5 values of fish and wildlife, open space, scenic views, scenic waterways, and conflicting land uses, such as rural residential uses, according to their relative impor- tance to one another for each individual site. Goal 5 and the Oregon Administrative Rules OAR 660-16-010 et seq. have been followed in this process as follows: (a) An inventory of significant or important mineral and aggregate resources has been adopted as Ordinance No. 90-025 that determines the quantity, quality and location of each mineral or aggregate site, as required in OAR Section 660-16-000. (b) Conflicting uses have been identified according to OAR 660-60-015 in the individual ESEE documents adopted by this Ordinance. (c) All inventoried sites were found to have conflicting Goal 5 resources and/or land uses and were subject to an economic, social, environmental and energy conse- quences (ESEE) analysis as required by LCDC Goal 5 and OAR 660-16-005(2). The ESEE analysis enables the County to provide reasons why decisions outlined in OAR 660-16-010 have been made for specific sites. These reasons are contained in the specific ESEE documents appended to this Ordinance as Appendix A and which are hereby incorporated by reference into this Ordinance. (d) Development of a program to meet the goal of protecting mineral and aggregate resources in the county has taken shape through the individual ESEE decisions and the implementation of those ESEE decisions through the surface mining ordinance, adopted as Ordinance No. 90- 014. The surface mining ordinance establishes stan- dards and procedures for surface mining operations and for development on lands within the impact area of a surface mining site. The ordinance provides that standards and procedures established in site-specific ESEE analyses control over the standards and procedures in the zoning ordinance where there is a conflict. The ordinance also provides that the standards and proce- dures in the ordinance and the site-specific ESEE analyses apply to sites with existing DOGAMI and/or County permits or exemptions only when such sites are expanded beyond the boundary of the areas covered by such permit or exemption. (e) It was found that at certain inventoried sites, con- flicting natural resource values and/or land uses were more important relative to the conflicting mineral and aggregate resource to warrant full protection of the 6 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) r ( � 1098 conflicting natural resource values and/or land uses. In such instances, the site was not zoned for surface mining and appropriate other zoning designation reflec- ting the land use at the site and the surrounding area will be retained or adopted. Based upon the site-spec- ific ESEE analysis, decisions were made to protect the conflicting Goal 5 and/or land uses and not designate for surface mining at sites 246, 251, 271, 273, 278, 288, 292, 297, 313, 314, 317, 326, 339, 341, 347, 351, 358, 392, 393, 400, 423, 433, 453, 467, 475, 541 and 542, all as identified on Exhibit "G" of Ordinance No. 90-025 and the individual ESEE decisions. (f) It was found that certain inventory sites have both conflicting Goal 5 resources and/or land uses and mineral and aggregate resources that are important relative to one another and that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting Goal 5 resources and/or land uses should be limited in a manner to allow each to occur at and around the site. Based upon the site-specific ESEE analysis, decisions were made to provide for both the mineral and aggregate use and the conflicting Goal 5 and/or land uses, pursuant to site- specific conditions and the surface mining zoning ordi- nance provisions, at sites 248, 249, 252, 275, 277, 282, 283, 293, 294, 296, 303, 304, 305/306, 315, 316, 322, 324, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335, 336, 342, 345, 346, 355, 356, 357, 361, 366, 368, 370, 379, 381, 390, 391, 392, 394, 395, 404, 405, 408, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 421, 426, 427, 432, 441-443, 459, 461, 465, 466, 469, 482, 488, 498, 499, 500, 501, 503, 505, 506, 508, 515, 522, 524, 528, 529, 533 and 543, all as identified on Exhibit "G" of Ordinance No. 90-025 and the individual ESEE decisions. Zoning 21. In 1979, pursuant to the adoption of its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, the County applied SM and SMR zoning to certain sites having mineral and aggregate resources. Those sites have remained so zoned to this day. 22. During the current inventory process, sites were identified for inclusion based upon the quantity, quality, and location of the mineral and aggregate resource without reference to whether the site was currently zoned for surface mining or not. Consequently, some of the inventoried sites are currently zoned SM or SMR and other inventoried sites do not have SM or SMR zoning, as they had not been recognized as containing mineral and aggregate resources in the previous comprehensive plan process. For the most part these sites are zoned for either farm or forest uses. 7 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) T_ 0196 101 1099 23. For those sites approved through the ESEE process for surface mining uses the zoning will be changed or retained, as appropriate, consistent with the mapping for each site as set forth in Exhibit B. 24. For those sites that through the ESEE process were not approved for surface mining, the zoning at the site will be change or retained, as appropriate, consistent with the mapping for each site as set forth in Exhibit C. Twenty-seven sites from the inventory were not approved for surface mining. In those cases where the current zoning is SM or SMR, the SM or SMR zoning is being removed. By adoption of this Ordinance, SM or SMR zoning will be replaced with the adjacent zoning from the surrounding zone. Where there is more than one adjacent zoning district, the zoning will be changed to that zoning indicated for the site by applicable portions of the comprehensive plan. The zoning for all denied sites is shown on maps set forth in Exhibit "C." 25. Some of the sites currently zoned SM or SMR in the County were not included in the County's inventory adopted by Ordinance No. 90-014. The exclusion of such sites occurred for a variety of reasons, including their classification as federal sites, stockpile sites, or irrigation district sites, receipt of information that there was no resource at the site or redrawing of inventory site boundaries to exclude presently zoned SM sites from the inventoried sites. Consequently, in such cases, the current SM or SMR zoning does not reflect the outcome of this Goal 5 process. The Board finds that there is a need to clarify the zoning status of such parcels. In the interest of making a timely conclusion of the process for those sites that were con- sidered in this ESEE process, however, the Board determines that clarification of the zoning status of those residual SM and SMR sites will occur on or before September 30, 1990. Section 2. ADOPTION OF ESEE DECISIONS AS PART OF COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN. Based upon the findings set forth above, the site specific ESEE decisions, set forth in Appendix A and fully incorporated by reference herein, are hereby adopted as part of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Each individual ESEE decision incorporates findings 7 through 19 set forth in this Ordinance. Section 3. ADOPTION OF ZONING REFLECTING ESEE DECISIONS. The zoning at each of the sites on the County's mineral and aggregate inventory, as set forth in Exhibit G of Ordinance No. 90-014, is hereby retained or changed, as the case may be, to reflect the ESEE decisions of the Board consistent with the maps set forth as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference herein. 8 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) 019 i 0 l - 1100 Section 4. RESIDUAL SM AND SMR ZONING. The zoning of SM and SMR sites that did not appear on the county's inventory, Exhibit G to Ordinance No. 90-014, and accordingly were not subject to an ESEE decision shall be clarified in a future rezoning process, on or before September 30, 1990, that will reflect the findings supporting this Ordinance. 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 July 16, 1990. Section 6. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. It is the legislative intent of this Ordinance that if any part of this Ordinance or any of the individual attachments hereto is held to be invalid or otherwise void, each and every other provision or attachment shall remain in force. Section 7. EFFECT OF ORDINANCE. Except as otherwise stated herein in Section 20(d) and in the Deschutes County Zoning Ordi- nance No. 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, as to each inventoried site, this Ordinance supercedes any previous legislative or quasi-judicial zoning determination at that site concerning surface m.ning. DATED this hl? t" day of , 1990. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SC S COU Y, OREGON 5z4z,_/.t�, /_ L IS, ISTOW PRANTE, AT EST::` Recording Secretary 9 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) ssioner sioner T 01.19` APPENDIX A I() -I I - 1101 11U2 ESEE OVERVIEW This document includes as Appendix Al a general description of the Goal 5 ESEE process and an analysis of the general ESEE consequences of zoning or not zoning surface mining sites from an area -wide perspective. This ESEE analysis served as the basis for the staff reports on each site and the site-specific ESEE findings and decisions attached hereto as Exhibit A2. The analysis focuses on aggregate, since the need for that resource is most critical and aggregate sites have tended to be the highest conflict sites. This analysis was based on the inventory as originally adopted by the Commission on December 9, 1988. In the interim, storage and processing, irrigation district and certain federal sites have been removed from the inventory under consideration. However, the analysis presented therein is still considered relevant. Following the removal of the above-mentioned sites from the inventory, the area -wide impacts of surface mining will be, if anything, less severe and the need for aggregate greater than as expressed in that document. The impacts analysis in the staff reports for the individual sites is based upon an extensive impact model drafted by the Planning staff. That impact model is a part of the general Goal 5 surface mining record supporting the Deschutes County Surface Mining element of its Comprehensive Plan, of which this ESEE package is a part. A bibliography describing the resources consulted and utilized in the impacts analysis is also included as part of the general surface mining record. The site specific ESEE analyses follow, covering each site on the County's inventory, as set forth in Exhibit G to Deschutes County Ordinance No. 90-025. These ESEE analyses are preceded by an errata sheet correcting or clarifying certain facts used in the ESEE findings and conditions imposed in the ESEE analyses. APPENDIX Al (AREA -WIDE ESEE DISCUSSION) 0l - 1103 .- 0201. Al 1" 1104 GOAL 5 PROCESS Goal 5 requires the county to "conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." (The complete text of the Goal and the implementing administrative rules are included in the Appendix.) Among the resources for which protection is required are mineral and aggregate resources. The Goal 5 administrative rules describe the process by which the county must implement Goal 5. The rules divide the Goal 5 process into four major stages: 1. Inventory (OAR 660-16-000): development of the resource inventory, based upon available data on the location, quality and quantity of the resource. 2. Conflicting Uses (OAR 660-16-005(1)): identification of uses which conflict with the inventoried resources. 3. ESEE Analysis (OAR 660-16-005(2)): evaluation of the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of allowing the identified conflicting uses on the inventoried resource sites. Both impacts on the resource site and on the conflicting use must be considered in the analysis. 4. Developing a Plan to Achieve the Goal (OAR 660-16-010): development of a plan to resolve conflicts with other uses while protecting the resource. In the inventory stage, the location, quantity and quality of the resource must be inventoried. The location of the resource must be designated on a map or in a description of the boundaries of the resource site. Resource quantity is determined by consider- ing the relative abundance of the resource. Resource quality is determined by evaluating the quality of the resource site rela- tive to other sites of the same resource category. The administrative rule gives the county three options with respect to resources identified in the inventory process. Based upon available data, the county may: 1. not include the resource on the adopted inventory, if it determines from available data that the resource "is not important enough to warrant inclusion on the plan inventory;" 2. delay the Goal 5 process, if the available data indi- cates a possible resource, but is insufficient to complete the Goal 5 process; or 1 aaw 3. include the resource on the its determination that the important." plan inventory, based upon resource is "significant or The administrative rule provides that once resource sites are inventoried, the county must identify all other Goal 5 resources, and other land uses, which may conflict with the inventoried Goal 5 resource sites. The inventory of other resources is based upon data including the county's comprehensive plan resource elements (e.g., "Deschutes River Study," Geothermal Element, etc.) The inventory of conflicting uses is based primarily upon the uses allowed in the zoning districts established by the county's zoning ordinances. A "conflicting use,, is defined in the administrative rule as one which, if allowed, could "negatively impact" a Goal 5 resource site. Where conflicting uses are identified, it may be deter- mined that the Goal 5 resource sites also impacts those uses. The administrative rule provides that if no conflicting uses or resources are identified for a particular Goal 5 resource site, the county must adopt policies and ordinance provisions which insure that the resource site is fully preserved and protected. If conflicting resources or uses are identified, the impacts of Goal 5 resource site, other resources and conflicting uses upon each other must be evaluated through an analysis of the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of those impacts. Once the ESEE analysis of each Goal 5 resource site is completed, the county must develop "a program to achieve the Goal." In other words, the county must develop a plan which resolves identified conflicts between the resource site and the other Goal 5 resources and conflicting uses, while protecting the Goal 5 resource site. The administrative rule gives the county three options for adopting a plan to achieve the Goal. The county may: 1. Protect the Goal 5 resource site fully -- based upon its determination from the inventory and ESEE analysis that the resource is so important, relative to con- flicting uses, and the impact of those conflicting uses is so great, that the resource site should be protected and no conflicting uses allowed. 2. Allow conflicting uses fully -- based upon the county's determination that the conflicting use is of such importance, relative to the resource site, that the conflicting use should be allowed fully notwithstanding its possible impacts upon the resource. K 0203 ifj-1 - 11UG 3. Limit conflicting uses -- based upon the county's determination that both the resource site and the conflicting use are important relative to each other, and that the ESEE consequences should be balanced to allow the conflicting use in a limited way so as to protect the resource to some desired extent. AREA DESCRIPTION Deschutes County is located in the geographical center of the state and is bordered on the south by Klamath and Lake Counties, on the east by Crook and Harney Counties, on the north by Jefferson County and on the west by Lane and Linn Counties. The County covers 3,060 square miles (1,939,200 acres). It ranks 11th in terms of land area of the 36 counties in Oregon. The entire county lies in the Deschutes River drainage basin with elevations of slightly over 3,000 feet at Redmond and Sisters, and 3,650 feet at Bend. The wide variation in altitude and precipitation results in a great diversity of vegetation. The foothills and lower eleva- tions of the Cascade are thickly timbered with fir, hemlock and pine (Douglas Fir, White Fir, Lodgepole Pine and Ponderosa Pine). By contrast, the vegetation in the High Lava Plains in the eastern part of the County changes eastward from Ponderosa Pine and Lodgepole Pine to Juniper, sagebrush and rabbit brush. Bunchgrass and planted grasses, such as crested wheat grass, are also present. The northward flowing Deschutes River divides the County into distinct physiographic provinces. West of the river are the foothills and towering peaks of the Cascades. East of the river is the gently undulating lava -covered plain, where no distinctive drainage pattern has yet been established. The northern part of the High Lava Plain slopes gently northward. Here, the Deschutes River and its tributaries have steep -walled canyons in the flat - lying lavas and sedimentary materials. South of Bend, the High Lava Plains are dominated by the massive Newberry Volcano (8,010 feet elev.) which has a complex eruptive history and now holds two large lakes within its summit caldera. Deschutes County could be called "The Land of a Thousand Volcanoes." More than 500 large volcanoes, cinder cones or volcanic vents can be counted on the geologic map, and probably that many or more are obscured by erosion and later sedimentary and volcanic cover. It is likely that Deschutes County contains a greater abundance and variety of volcanic landforms than any other area of similar size in the United States. 3 7- 020,1 0-1 - 1107 The geologic make-up of Deschutes County produces an environment where mineral and aggregate resources generally are more numerous west of the Deschutes River than east of the river. The lava flows from Lava Butte and Newberry Crater were affected by the Deschutes River's flow and this accounts for much of the lava formations and shallow soils near and east of Bend. The area west of the Deschutes River, however, has intermittent aggregate deposits from glacial trails and tils occurring from the ice age and deposits resulting from floods near the Sisters area. ESEE ANALYSIS Introduction This section describes the process by which the ESEE analysis of mineral and aggregate resource sites is conducted, and the factors considered in the analysis. The analysis process pro- vides a mechanism by which to measure: 1) the significance of the mineral and aggregate resource site relative to the value of other Goal 5 resources and conflicting uses; 2) the degree of the impacts upon the resource site from conflicting uses and other Goal 5 resources; and 3) the degree of the impacts upon the conflicting uses and other Goal 5 resources from the resource site. The Goal 5 administrative rules require that the ESEE analysis of the county's inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites be site-specific. However, some factors in the ESEE analysis of those sites are common throughout the county, and are discussed generally in this section to avoid unnecessary repetition. The site-specific ESEE analyses are included in another section of this document. Area -Wide Conflicting Uses As noted above, the Goal 5 administrative rules describe a "conflicting use" as one which, if allowed, could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource site. In addition, the rule recognizes that where conflicting uses have been identified, the Goal 5 resource may impact those uses. The Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. PL -15, establishes numerous zoning districts throughout the county, and through those districts regulates the uses of land therein. 4 014'.105) ) ,OIL - 1108 Because identified mineral and aggregate resource sites are located throughout the county, virtually every site will be impacted by uses in one or more of the county's zoning districts. The following zoning districts exist within the county: - Exclusive Farm Use - 320 (EFU 320) - Exclusive Farm Use - 80 (EFU 80) - Exclusive Farm Use - 40 (EFU 40) - Exclusive Farm Use - 20 (EFU 20) - Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10) - Forest Use (F-1) - Forest Use (F-2) - Forest Use (F-3) - Open Space and Conservation (OS & C) - Rural Residential (RR -10) - Rural Service Center (RSC) - Rural Service Residential (RSR -M) - Rural Service Residential - 5 (RSR -5) - Airport Development (A -D) - Landscape Management Combining (LM) - Wildlife Area Combining (WA) - Conventional Housing Combining (CH) - Flood Plain (FP) - Rural Industrial (R -I) - Research and Development (R & D) All of the above zones permit uses, either outright or condition- ally, that could negatively impact mineral and aggregate resource sites. Conversely, many of these uses also could be negatively impacted by such resource sites. The uses permitted in these zones range from such passive uses as public wildlife reserves or management areas and open space, to intensive uses such as public and private campgrounds and destination resorts. Permitted uses in these zoning districts which may negatively impact mineral and aggregate resource sites include: - farming activities, including the raising of livestock - dwellings (single- and multi -family, condominiums, mobile home parks) - parks, playgrounds, community buildings - churches, schools, hospitals - commercial uses (such as retail stores, restaurants, offices) - tourist and recreation facilities (such as golf courses, swimming facilities, bicycle paths) - airstrips (public and private) Agriculture, forestry and residential uses are the conflicting uses which most commonly occur at or near mineral and aggregate resource sites. For example, there are many rural residences within the county which have been constructed on legal parcels 5 01121 A; �]i - 1109 (created before adoption of the county's comprehensive plan and the statewide land use planning goals) which are adjacent to inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites. Another prevalent conflicting land use is recreational use. According to documents included in the record of the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study ("River Study"), high quality environment and substantial recreational opportunities in Deschutes County are major attributes for the county and are principle reasons why many people have settled here. Area -Wide Conflicting Goal 5 Resources In addition to the conflicting land uses described above, there are numerous identified Goal 5 resources at or near mineral and aggregate resource sites which may conflict with mineral and aggregate resource sites. Identified Goal 5 resources which exist throughout the county include: Land needed and desirable for open space - Fish and wildlife areas and habitats - Ecologically and scientifically significant natural areas, including desert areas - Outstanding scenic view and sites - Water areas, wetlands, watersheds and groundwater resources - Wilderness areas - Historic areas, sites, structures and objects - Cultural areas - Potential and approved Oregon recreation trails - Potential and approved federal wild and scenic water- ways and state scenic waterways Wildlife resources and habitat are particularly significant throughout the county. Documents in the record of the "River Study" indicate that the diversity of habitats on the eastern slopes of the Cascades support nearly seventy percent of the state's native vertebrates. For example, mule deer, the most plentiful of the big game species found in Deschutes County, require both summering and wintering areas. Summering areas need to provide adequate space, grass forage, fawning and calving, thermal cover, and escape from human and predator harassment. Wintering areas need to provide relatively snow -free feeding areas with good supplies of grass and browse species in close proximity to tree and brush cover. Extraction and processing of mineral and aggregate resources could negatively impact such habitat by such activities as removing vegetation used for forage and cover, and harassment due to human proximity and noise. C 0 .e( i There also exist significant populations of waterfowl, upland game birds and fur -bearing animals throughout Deschutes County. (Estimated populations of the different species may be found in the appendices.) Habitat needed for this wildlife may be adversely impacted by mineral and aggregate extraction and processing by such activities as removal of vegetation, siltation of water through runoff, and human harassment by proximity and noise. The most significant wildlife habitat resources in the county are the critical winter deer ranges, antelope calving areas, and habitat areas needed for rare and endangered species, including the Peregrine Falcon, the Bald Eagle, the Northern Spotted Owl, and the wolverine. Determination of Relative Values of Resources and Conflicting Uses The Goal 5 administrative rules provide that once conflicting resources and uses are identified, the county must perform an ESEE analysis of each site to determine the relative values and the level of conflict between the Goal 5 resource and the con- flicting resources and uses. A number of factors must be considered in the process of assign- ing relative values to resources and conflicting uses. Some resources and uses are susceptible to quantification. others are not. In the case of mineral and aggregate resource sites, the relative value of the site may be determined by several quantitative factors, including: 1. the relative quantity of the resource -- i.e., how large is the resource at the site, in comparison with other sites of the same resource type; 2. the relative quality of the resource -- i.e., whether the resource meets industry standards for a particular use, how the quality compares to other sites of the same type of resource, etc. 3. the location of the resource site relative to the market for the resource -- i.e., whether the resource site is sufficiently close to the market for its development to be economically feasible. In the case of other Goal 5 resources, the value of that resource relative to mineral and aggregate resources will depend upon factors including: 7 �. 0 A f� 1. the nature of the resource -- i.e., endangered species, archaeological site, wetland habitat; 2. its location relative to the mineral and aggregate resource; and 3. the sensitivity of the resource to conflicts. The relative value of conflicting uses is determined by evaluat- ing the use under factors including the following: 1. the nature of the conflicting use -- i.e., the degree of intensity of the use; 2. the market or other value of the conflicting use, if quantifiable; 3. the location of the conflicting use relative to the mineral and aggregate resource; 4. whether the conflicting use is permitted outright or conditionally; 5. whether the conflicting use already exists or is a potential use; and 6. the extent to which impacts of the conflicting use on mineral and aggregate resources can be mitigated. Determination of Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of Impacts and Conflicts Once the relative values of the mineral and aggregate resource, other Goal 5 resources, and conflicting uses on a particular site have been determined, the county must evaluate the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of preserving the resource(s) versus allowing the conflicting uses. Many of the economic, social, environmental and energy conse- quences of preserving the mineral and aggregate resource and of allowing conflicting uses are generally identifiable without regard to site-specific factors. Those general consequences are identified and analyzed below in this document. Selection of the Conflict -Resolution Alternative The purpose of the ESEE analysis of the impacts and conflicts is to select for each mineral and aggregate site one of the three conflict -resolution options authorized by the Goal 5 administra- tive rules: 02019 101 :, 1112 1. protecting the mineral and aggregate resource fully (no conflicting uses allowed); 2. allowing conflicting uses fully (regardless of their impact upon the mineral and aggregate resource); or 3. limiting conflicting uses to some degree and protect the mineral and aggregate resource to some degree (balancing the impacts). Adoptina a Plan to Achieve the Goal Once the conflict -resolution alternative has been selected for each mineral and aggregate site, the county adopts a plan to carry out these choices by comprehensive plan and zoning ordi- nance provisions. AREA -WIDE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES Mineral and aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Therefore, any analysis of the economic consequences of protecting or limiting the resource necessarily will focus on the market impacts -- i.e., the effect on supply and demand. How- ever, other, less direct economic impacts, must also be analyzed, such as the impacts upon employment, income, transportation and tourism. Under basic economic principles, if there is a change in supply, there may be change in demand, a vice versa. The magnitude of the change is an important consideration. In the case of mineral and aggregate resources, the demand for the resource is Deschutes County is relatively predictable, and can be predicted to increase with the county's growth. The variable is supply. Therefore, the major issue in analyzing the direct economic impact of preserving or limiting the resource is the effect on supply. A significant reduction in the supply of mineral and aggregate resource available to meet the demand in Deschutes County, through the loss or restriction in the use of the resource, likely will produce a corresponding increase in demand and price for the remaining supply. In addition, because of the extraordi- nary amount of capital required to establish and operate a surface mining company, a significant reduction in resource supply could make it not economically feasible for an operator to enter the market or to continue to operate. With respect to the less direct economic impacts of preserving or limiting the mineral and aggregate resource, the county's employ- ment and income characteristics can be expected to feel a much 9 ( 'Z :_0 10.1 - 1113 more limited impact. The surface mining industry itself employs relatively few people. The principal sources of employment in the county are wood products, the tourism and service industries, and government. These industries are not directly dependent upon a supply of mineral and aggregate resources. Another less direct economic impact is upon transportation and construction. Since the primary consumers of mineral and aggre- gate resources are governments for transportation projects and contractors for general construction, a significant reduction in the supply of the resource could have a negative impact upon the construction and maintenance of roads, as well as on the con- struction of dwellings and other structures. Analysis and Summary From an overall perspective, there should be no adverse economic impact from the preservation of mineral and aggregate resources in Deschutes County. The county -wide need for mineral and aggregate resources has been estimated to be, at a minimum, 2 million cubic yards per year. 4 About 96,000 acres have been identified as suitable for mineral and aggregate production within Deschutes County. Approximately 86,100 acres of that land has been identified as being relatively free of constraints -- i.e., free of topographical, economical or land use restrictions. Only about 10, 500 acres are located in close proximity to the county's major population centers. Therefore, only about 9 percent of the total acreage containing mineral and aggregate resources is likely to have negative impacts on adjacent residen- tial uses and for which constraints might be anticipated. 5. Mineral and aggregate resources are locationally dependent, and shortages may result if the resources are not permitted to be developed on lands located near enough to market areas to be economically feasible to develop. As an example, of the approx- imately 82 million cubic yards of sand and gravel resources identified on the county's mineral and aggregate resource inven- tory, approximately 34 million cubic yards (or 41%) of these resources are located within 15 to 20 miles of Bend, Tumalo and Redmond. 5. Approximately 35 percent (28,470,000 cu. yds.) of the identified sand and gravel resource is anticipated to have few or no nega- tive impacts or development constraints. The primary economic disadvantage of these sites is that they are all over 15 to 20 miles from consumer markets. 5. Portions of both constrained and unconstrained land in Deschutes County contain other Goal 5 resources. Conservation and protec- tion of these other resources may result in a reduction of land potentially available for the extraction of mineral and aggregate resources. W 1101 - 1114 Property tax impacts from the zoning and development of mineral and aggregate resource sites are not expected to be significant, although there may be some short-term negative impacts upon some individual residential properties. Contrary to the common perception, the data indicate that values of properties located adjacent to surface mining operations do not decrease substan- tially. Case studies in Deschutes County indicated that fluctua- tions in property values for those properties located in proxim- ity to surface mines are more dependent upon the national and regional economic picture.' Generally, because manufacturing jobs (which would include some forms of employment in the surface mining industry) tend to pay higher wages, the creation of manufacturing jobs is viewed by the community as beneficial. The addition of raw materials and labor to create a product adds value to it. When the raw material is exported from the region, the money which pays for it flows back into the region, increasing the regional wealth. The higher average wages for manufacturing jobs will also allow a continua- tion or improvement of the community's standard of living. Displacement of industrial employment opportunities by protection of a Goal 5 resource has a greater potential adverse impact than would the displacement of an equivalent number of non -manufactur- ing jobs. In summary, adverse economic impact will result when insufficient lands are available for mineral and aggregate resources. Given the projected annual demand of 2 million cubic yards of quality aggregate, and considering the non-renewable nature of the resource, it is to the benefit of the Deschutes County community to preserve and protect as many acres of mineral and aggregate resource as is economically and environmentally feasible. Findings A total of nearly 96,000 acres of land in Deschutes County are affected by surface mining sites. This represents only about 5 percent of the total area in Deschutes County. ' The Assessor's office has determined from records of land transactions in the Tumalo Rim subdivision near sites 305 and 306 that land transactions continue despite the presence of nearby mines. Similarly, a review of assessor's records for section 30 hear the Bend Aggregate sites of Highland and Cline Falls (site 488) shows that sales have occurred during the period from 1986 through 1988. Information on real estate value was obtained from appraisal jackets from the Deschutes County apprai- ser's office. 11 - T ,W Al -A 1115 Demand These findings are based upon the report to the PSU Center for Population Research & Census, dated December 14, 1988. 1. County estimates the total county population as 79,000. 2. The 1980 census established a population for Deschutes County of 62,142. 3. This represents a 16,858 person gain or 21 percent. 4. The unincorporated portion of the county is estimated at 48,000 for 1988 by the county. 5. The 1980 census established a population of 37,731 for the unincorporated area of Deschutes County. Employment Findings 1. The average size of the 1985 labor force in Deschutes County was 29,740 and average unemployment was 3,620 or 10.9%. This compare with a statewide rate of 8.8%.1 2. Between the years of 1970 and 1985, the average annual growth rate for the lumber and wood products industry was 4.4%, while the State of Oregon's growth rate was -.3%. 3. The mineral and aggregate industry employs approximately 130 employees.3 4. The majority of new jobs added in Deschutes County between 1970 and 1985 (a total of 13,500) have been generated in the services and miscellaneous (3,900), trade (3,280), F.I.R.E. (4,700) and government (2,000) groups. 5. Between 1980 and 1985, employment in the lumber and wood products industry increased 28.1%.1 6. In 1985, employment in the lumber and wood products industry comprised 6.2% of total employment and 31.8% of the manufac- turing employment.) 7. Between 1980 and 1985, the lumber and wood products industry increased its employment by 28%, the service industry by 30% and finance, insurance and real estate industries by 176%. Income 1. Per capita income in 1984 and $10,337 in Deschutes County. The state average for per capita income was $11,613, well above the county figure.) 12 ` QA-' t Al 1.11G 2. The sources of personal income have changed dramatically in recent years. Between 1979 and 1984, wage and salary income increased by only 25%, significantly less than total income growth of 41%. The fastest growing sources of income were transfer payments (up 90%) and dividends, interest and rent (up 75%). By 1984, wage and salaries represented only 50% of total personal income in Deschutes County.) 3. The average annual wage in the travel -related industries is $9,062.2 4. Average annual wage in the lumber and wood products industry is $19,467.2 5. Income from agriculture was $24.9 million during 1985. A 12.1% increase over 1984 and 83% above 1982.1 6. In 1985, 26.8% of Deschutes County's farm income came from field crops and 73.2% came from livestock.) 7. Cattle and calves contributed 21.1% of the total farm income, but the bulk of livestock sales can be traced to miscellaneous animals, namely llamas and horses. Over 41% of all Deschutes County's total farm sales and over 80% of livestock sales come from the animals.) 8. The $10.3 million in farm income from miscellaneous live- stock ranked Deschutes County first of all 36 counties in Oregon in terms of miscellaneous livestock farm income.) 9. In 1984 receipts attributed to the travel -related industries totaled $87,192,000. 10. The payroll for the Oregon Concrete and Aggregate Producers Association members in Deschutes County is $4 million.3 AREA -WIDE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES Deschutes County represents an area of major recreational oppor- tunity, since active and passive recreation constitute two of the largest uses of the land. Recreation opportunities are important to Deschutes County residents as indicated by their unwillingness to accept losses in certain types of recreational opportunities even if economic disadvantages are the result. 6 The quality of the environment has been and will continue to be an increasingly influential factor in attracting people to Deschutes County. Few losses in environmental qualities are acceptable to Deschutes County residents even if such losses would be accompanied by economic benefits. 13 I 0 1 - 111-1 Because of the high social value placed by Deschutes County residents and visitors upon scenic, recreational and high quality environments in the county, the preservation of mineral and aggregate resource sites in or adjacent to those areas may have negative impacts. Surface mining operations may increase the noise, dust, traffic and negative visual impacts. These negative impacts may be particularly significant in areas within river and stream corridors. However, only a small percentage of mineral and aggregate resource sites are located in or adjacent to river and stream corridors. Summary and Analysis From an overall perspective, there should be no adverse social impacts from the preservation of mineral and aggregate resources in Deschutes County. The social costs of preserving the mineral and aggregate resources concern reducing the livability of the area by decreasing the amount of open space and scenic views, negatively impacting the tourism and recreation industry by potentially reducing the vegetative, wildlife and scenic resources considered important to those industries, and nega- tively impacting transportation facilities. The inventory of mineral and aggregate resources identifies about 311 sites which could be zoned for surface mining. These 311 sites occupy approximately 96,000 acres (or five percent) of the 1,939,200 acres in the county. In general, therefore, the social cost of preserving five percent of the total area of Deschutes County for mineral and aggregate resources does not outweigh the social benefit of having available a needed, non-renewable resource at low cost. However, the social cost of preserving mineral and aggregate resources in areas of high scenic and recreational value, such as within river and stream corridors, may be significant. The social benefits of preserving non-renewable mineral and aggregate resources are related in part to the number of rela- tively high -paying jobs in this manufacturing sector compared with the number of relatively low-paying jobs in the tourism and recreation industries. Another social benefit concerns the relatively short-term life span of surface mines compared with the long term use of the land for tourism and recreation. There is a greater net social benefit to the county and its residents in preserving the non- renewable resource and allowing them to enjoy the use of the resource at a substantially lower cost than would otherwise be the case. As discussed in the area -wide economic consequences analysis, the potential negative impact of surface mining on the values of adjacent properties is less significant than may be perceived. 14 Perceived diminished "livability" due to proximity to surface mines appears not to translate into reduced property values. Data developed by the Deschutes County Assessor's office indi- cates that sales and values of properties adjacent to surface mines appear to be affected by national and regional economic factors, rather than proximity to surface mining sites. In summary, given the fact that only approximately five percent of the land in Deschutes County contains mineral and aggregate resource sites, and that property values generally do not decline in value or cease to sell with the development of adjacent surface mines, from an overall perspective, there are not adverse social impacts from preservation of mineral and aggregate resources. However, with respect to other natural resources (such as open space, significant scenic areas and wildlife habitats) due to the value of these other resources, surface mining could have significant negative impacts. Tourism and Recreation Many of the following findings are based on data and conclusions from the Oregon State University survey (1979) and the Ragatz survey (1985), which is a part of the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study. 1. Central Oregon has a competitive advantage in travel and tourism and the Deschutes River is a unique feature of that advantage, distinguishing it from other Northwest destina- tions. 2. Central Oregon's combination of weather, variety of high- quality recreation resources and supply of good -quality commercial and public development sets it apart in the Northwest market area. 3. Total overnight visitor expenditure in 1984 amounted to $87.2 million, which equates to a total economic impact of about $209 million. 4. Expenditure associated with overnight travel to Deschutes County accounted for 2,400 jobs, not counting additional indirect employment. 5. The significance of the Deschutes River will increase over time as other river resources near population centers become more populated and degraded. 6. About one out of three county residents considers the Deschutes River the most important part of the area's attractiveness. 15 ICJI - Ill 7. Recreation opportunity is the leading reason why almost one- half of county residents located in Deschutes County. 8. County residents oppose trade-offs in fishing (75%), sight- seeing (67%), hiking (66%) and hunting (60%) opportunities for economic growth. 9. Almost nine out of every ten visitors to Deschutes County came for vacation or recreation purposes and consider the Deschutes River one of a number of attractive features. 10. Almost 50 percent of visitors sightsee along the Deschutes River while vacationing in Deschutes County. 11. Twenty-two percent of visitors view wildlife while vacation- ing in Deschutes County. Passive recreation activities, such as hiking, sightseeing and picnicking are the most common. 12. Bend and the Deschutes River rank first and second as places visited while in Deschutes County. 13. All major destination resorts, with the exception of Black Butte Ranch, are located on the Deschutes River. Land Use 1. Undeveloped lands next to streams are the most favored land use (45%) desired by county residents. Most residents (57%) support additional undeveloped lands along rivers in public ownership. 2. Almost eight out of ten county residents support additional efforts by local, state and federal agencies to preserve the stream corridors. 3. Development along the river that incorporates open space into the overall design enhances the value and livability of the area. 4. Public access along rivers and streams for fishing and recreation is limited by private development. 5. The Deschutes River and Squaw Creek offer a unique combina- tion of ponderosa pine and high desert vegetation types. Water quality is exceptionally good. 6. Isolated or small-scale hydroelectric development on the Deschutes River may have an effect on the visitor industry, however, any development that substantially affects the Deschutes River's undeveloped/natural image will limit the degree to which that can be used as an attraction. 16 oz z l Cultural and Historical Resources 1. The Deschutes River corridor figured prominently in the movement and development of native American cultures. 2. The rimrock areas in particular contain a high density of archaeologic sites. 3. Many river and stream corridors have not been inventoried for their archaeologic significance. 4. Land use practices such as homesite development, surface mining, agriculture and logging destroy or disturb evidence of archaeologic sites. 5. Archaeologic sites on private land which lack skeletal remains and that may be essential in adequately interpreting Deschutes River basin prehistory are not protected under state or federal law. 6. Public awareness of our history and cultural background has been and will continue to be an important source of knowl- edge, pride, education and enjoyment for this and future generations.8 7. Rapid growth and development make it imperative that the County's historic and cultural resources be identified and protected.8 8. Lack of private owner incentive for preservation has led to historic site deterioration or loss.8 9. Inventory, assessment and recording of historic and cultural resources is an ongoing process which must be kept current.8 10. Properly preserved and utilized historic and cultural resources enhance the local economy.8 11. There exist state and federal laws which prohibit historic and cultural resources from disturbance or destruction.8 Demographic Findings The demographic findings are the same as the findings contained in the "Area -Wide Economic Consequences" discussion in the document, and are not restated here. 17 AREA -WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Natural resources within Deschutes County function interdepen- dently to provide a system the overall value of which is higher than the sum of the individual components. Prior to making decisions on the land use potential of individual sites, one must first understand what are the basic environmental processes of the entire system. Since the environment is of significant value to the County and its residents, key elements must be preserved or enhanced. The four basic elements that interact to form the basic environ- mental processes are: - Water Supply - Soils - Vegetation - Topography If there is a change in any one of the basic elements from surface mining activity, the change is felt throughout the entire local ecosystem. Changes in water supply may cause aquifer interruption, changes in stream flow and degradation of water quality. Changes in soil characteristics may result in: a direct loss of soil by either removal or erosion; changes in the flora and fauna; changes in moisture content and soil structure; and changes in soil nutrients. Changes in the local vegetation may result in modification of species composition, food value and available cover and density. Changes in topography may result in a removal or change in natural shelters, changes in the microclimate or in the creation of barriers to wildlife. Human presence has probably the most direct effect on the envi- ronmental characteristics. Changes in local land use may result in increased competition between wildlife and livestock and changes in wildlife food sources. Fencing of migration routes may occur and changes could result in wildlife habitat enhance- ment. Of all the changes, the introduction of human presence with the associated noise and disturbance may be one of the most detri- mental impacts associated with surface mines. W. itol 1122 Summary and Analysis From an overall perspective, there should be no significant net adverse environmental impact from the preservation of mineral and aggregate resources in Deschutes County. As indicated earlier in this document, only about five percent of the total land area in the County (96,000 acres) is proposed to be included in the County's mineral and aggregate inventory. Some of that land is in wildlife overlay zones. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has recommended that in identi- fied significant and sensitive habitat areas, only five acres will be in production at any one time. If that recommendation is followed, there is a potential of only 1,500 acres of mineral and aggregate resource land in wildlife areas being mined at any one time. A requirement of limiting mining activities during December 1 through April 30 would also reduce the impacts of mining on the wildlife habitat. Road closure areas also will minimize human disturbance. Findings The Tumalo deer winter range is located west of Bend and extends northwest to just south of the City of Sisters, and contains approximately 57,184 acres. The Paulina deer winter range is located south and east of Bend.8 That portion of the Metolius deer winter range located within Deschutes County lies north of Highway 126 and between Indian Ford and Camp Polk Roads to the west and Lower Bridge Road to the east.8 The Benham Falls elk winter range is located just upstream from Bend along the Deschutes River. These elk are year-round resi- dents, but winter primarily in the Ryan Ranch area immediately downstream from Benham Falls.7 There is a significant deer migration corridor existing between Bend and LaPine that generally follows the Little Deschutes River corridor.7 All riparian zones in Deschutes County have been identified as significant and sensitive wildlife habitat areas. There is significant Golden Eagle nesting habitat located in that area lying north of Highway 20 to the Jefferson County line between the City of Sisters and the Deschutes River. 19 i, U1 ', 112 3 Because of the value of mineral and aggregate resources to the economy, aggregate and mineral removal from the Tumalo winter range should be limited to no more than a five -acre parcel per site which is to be reclaimed while the second five -acre parcel is being mined.11 Aggregate pits should not be operated during the period of December 1 through April 30 so as to minimize the effects upon the wintering deer herds during the most severe parts of the winter. AREA -WIDE ENERGY CONSEQUENCES The major use of energy in Deschutes County, both at present and as expected in the future, is transportation. Economic prin- ciples in the mineral and aggregate industry dictate that these resources be convenient to major transportation routes. Any factors that would limit the use of mineral and aggregate resources near transportation routes and the market would decrease efficiency and increase energy consumption. Summary and Analysis From an overall perspective, there should be no adverse energy consequences from the preservation of mineral and aggregate resources if those resources are located within 15 to 20 miles of consumer market areas and in proximity to transportation corridors. If the sites with these characteristics are not allowed to be mined, the residents of Deschutes County would be forced to pay higher prices for these resources than would otherwise be the case. Findings Mineral and aggregate resources are locationally dependent on the geological and surface characteristics of the County. Economies of scale and bulk weight resources require the development resources in reasonable proximity consumer market areas. 20 of most mineral and aggregate of mineral and aggregate to transportation corridors and 101 " 1124 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Economic Development Services and David Evans and Assoc- iates, Inc., Economic Study of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and Deschutes County; February 1987. 2. Ragatz Associates, Tourism and Recreation in Deschutes County; Economic Benefits and the Role of the Deschutes River. Deschutes County, 1985. 3. Oregon Concrete and Aggregate Producers Association; Richard Angstrom, Managing Director, Personal Communication; January 1989. 4. Lynch, Gary, Supervisor, Mined Land Reclamation Division; Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Letter from Gary Lynch dated October 18, 1988. 5. Deschutes County, Inventory of Mineral and Aggregate Resources in Deschutes County; December 9, 1988. 6. Deschutes County, Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study; April 1986. 7. Deschutes County, Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan; 1980. 8. State of Oregon, Department of Human Resources, Labor Market Information, Labor Trends; September 1977. 9. Deschutes County, LaPine Deer Study, September 1977. 10. Deschutes County, Tumalo Winter Range Study; Inventory and Recommendations for Land Use; June 1977. 11. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, An Environmental Guide to Western Surface Mining, Part Two: Impacts, Mitigation and Monitoring; December 1977. 21 APPENDIX A2 (SITE-SPECIFIC ESEES) AL ioll _" 112G ERRATA SHEET AGGREGATE AMOUNTS The site-specific ESEEs include several references to inventoried aggregate amounts. In some cases, these amounts are incorrectly stated. With respect to the total amount of inventoried aggre- gate, figures in the ESEE documents concerning aggregate mate- rials should be based upon a total of 63,663,000 cubic yards, including crushable rock. When added to the amounts found within the Bend urban growth boundary, which appears to total a maximum of 20,000,000 cubic yards, the total resource equals 83,663,000 cubic yards. It should be noted that this 20,000,000 cubic yard figure has not been tested in this inventory process and may be inflated. The site-specific ESEEs making determinations on aggregate sites also make reference to the total amount of aggregate, including crushable rock, zoned surface mining during the ESEE process. In some cases, those amounts of incorrectly stated. The total amount of aggregate, including crushable rock, should be stated as 45,197,000 cubic yards. WILDLIFE CONDITIONS The ESEE on some of the sites refer to wildlife conditions as set forth by DEQ or reference a winter closure from October 31 to March 31. In such instances, the conditions referring to wild- life protection should read as follows: "Wildlife conditions as set forth in the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife letter dated August 10, 1989, recommending this site for deer winter range and spe- cial wildlife consideration." 01"1"." `Z .L 10`. 1127 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 252 Site Number 252, occupying tax lot 4700 in Township 15 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 16, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 252 comprises approximately 160 acres and is located on the northwest flank of Cline Butte, approximately three-quarters mile south of Highway 126. The site is owned by Eva Thornburg and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-40. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 L [ l -^ '1123 ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 2.5 million cubic yards of quarry rock which meets ODOT specifications for quality for road construction purposes. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is has been mined since 1952 as a quarry rock site. The site is located on the northwest flank of Cline Butte and accesses along Hall Road off of Cline Falls Road. Currently, there is approximately five acres of excavation and the remainder of the site is vegetated with natural juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. All area within one-half mile of the site is natural range land, most of which is owned by the subject property owner. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The scenic values of the site are limited to views from Highway 126 and Cline Falls Road. No special scenic values have been desig- nated for the site. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-40 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the EFU-40 would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and (4) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. However, due to the large lot sizes in the area, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. The Board finds that most of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership or under the control of the subject property owner. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, riparian areas, fish resources, and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with 3 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 252 ,, �,-; �.� a 01 11:30 others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 126 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic as- sociated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 126. Protection of Natural 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 'I - 1132 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consecuences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the Highway 126 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 126 corridor for highway maintenance. There- fore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of the this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 0-1 � 1134 patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations; the owner has indicated that that would not be a problem in this case. Protection of sur- rounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 ,<. ��=�► � J.135 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and in- creasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 126 and surrounding County roads would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 126. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 'U1 - 113E of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 I. iol - 1133 existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 16. 20. 21. 22. 01 - 1139 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #252 COVER INFORMATION SHEET MAP GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/9/88 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/18/88 LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 3/11/87 MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 3/11/87 LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 3/2/87 LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 12/18/84 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 12/18/84 LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 5/7/84 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/16/83 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/20/83 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/26/82 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/2/82 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/2/82 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/27/81 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 10/28/83 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 2/26/80 LETTER FROM EMMA M. KEMP DATED 1/23/78 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 2/15/77 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/4/77 LIST OF NAMES & ADDRESSES 1 io,i -, 1140 23. MEMO FROM MID OREGON CRUSHING ON PARCEL 24. MEMO FROM MID OREGON CRUSHING ON PARCEL 1/11/78 25. LETTER FROM THORNBURGH'S TO COUNTY 7/5/88 26. QUARRY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 27. QUARRY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1973 28. DOGAMI GRANT OF EXEMPTION APPLICATION 9/8/88 29. REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION 2/18/88 30. QUANTITY ESTIMATE FROM OWNERS 10/31/88 31. COMPUTERIZED INVENTORY SHEET 11/18/88 32. APPRAISERS REPORT & STAFF REPORT 2/9/89 33. GRAVEL OPERATION FILE 1973 & 1974 34. NOTICE LIST 35. NOTIFICATION MAPS 36. MYLAR OF TOPO 37. LETTER FROM DESCH. COUNTY 10/20/88 238. PPL`A_NN1I"N�G COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1'1P�(A ��, �� t7h („�MrY+�`�S�G'1QfiS G+LCiSiD`1 YYl �n�:�lS 2 _rQ -� 1141 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 246 Site Number 246, occupying tax lots 205, 207, 208, 300, 302 and 303, in Township 15 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Sections 3, 9 and 10, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a prelim- inary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 246 comprises approximately 10 acres and is located along Squaw Creek just east of Sisters. The site is owned by Gary Tewalt and is currently zoned FP. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and RR -10. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report from an appraiser hired by the County to describe the site and its surroundings was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 11 toi 1142 During the ESEE hearings, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Bill Dugan, a neighbor of the proposed site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. In addition to documents generated for this Goal 5 process, the file includes materials concerning applications for fill and removal permits for flood control projects at the site. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 10,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 246 runs along Squaw Creek just east of Sisters. The site is located primarily within the creekbed. The creek bed is 5 to 10 feet lower than the surrounding topography. It appears that the site crosses the property lines of several property owners along the stream. The site has previously been the site of gravel excavation under a fill and removal permit. The purpose of those earlier extractions was to prevent flooding along the banks of Squaw Creek. On both sides of the creek are suburban residential proper- ties. These properties have views of the creek. Within a half mile are similar residential properties. McKinney Butte is a half mile to the north of the site and the Sisters State Park is within a half mile upstream of the site. The town of Sisters is within a half mile to the west of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, the resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan lists Squaw Creek as having Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout. ODFW has identified this area as having native wild trout habitat. The County Comprehensive Plan calls for the County to support efforts by ODFW to manage appropriate reaches of rivers and streams. Fish habitat in this area is limited by low or non-existent summer flows. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 C)J2AQ s } -, 1143 2. Open space and scenic values. The County Comprehensive Plan calls for the inclusion of areas along Squaw Creek in the LM zone, which would protect scenic values 200 feet back from the river. The inventoried deposit in this case includes the beds and banks of Squaw Creek. 3. Riparian habitat. The resource element of the County Comprehensive Plan identifies this area along Squaw Creek as having sensitive riparian habitat. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of vegetation, excavation of the streambed, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences and processing facilities and fugitive dust emissions. 2. Impacts on deer would be primarily increased noise and human presence and the effect would generally be to cause deer to avoid such areas. 3. Impacts on fish resources could include increased turbidity and siltation resulting in loss of food sources, loss of spawning habitat, increased water temperatures and general loss of habitat and cover due to destruction of the streambed and loss of streamside vegetation. These impacts would be lessened by the fact that the stream is intermittent and dry during the summer months. The Board finds that fish and wildlife and riparian habitat and scenic values along the creek conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat and riparian areas and scenic resour- ces, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust, increased human pre- sence, and water quality impacts as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust and physi- cal scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact fish and wildlife and their habitat and scenic values. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 and RR -10 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses, except motorcycle tracks, utility facilities, feedlots, landfills, other mining activities, personal use landing strips, and forest product processing are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. Because of the disposition of this matter with the respect to Goal 5 conflicts, the Board finds that it need not address land use conflicts any further. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. The site is not likely to attract visi- tors, given that it is bounded by private property. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on riparian fish and wildlife habitat and exacerbate a visual disturbance in the landscape. The social consequences of reduced wildlife viewing opportun- ities and affected scenery would be felt primarily by neighboring residents. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on riparian fish and wildlife habitat and scenery along the creek. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remain- ing forage and cover. Wildlife would avoid the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 -' 01 - 114 5 in other areas for these resources. Because of the nature of the site, excavation would take place in the streambed itself. There would be no possibility of moving the opera- tions outside of the streambank to protect possible fish habitat and other riparian values. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Given the limited amount of material at the site and its thin distribution along a creekbed, it would most likely be more energy efficient to mine other sites. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of riparian habitat and fish and wildlife resources and scenic qualities would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site is the smallest quantity site on the inventory and that not allowing mining 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 01 - 114G on the site would have no significant impact on the County's ability to reach its needs. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at aggregate sites could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. Given the small quantity of material at this site, it is unlikely that failure to allow mining at the site would have any impact in this respect. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the Goal 5 resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of topography and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of those resources. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, riparian habitat and fish and wildlife resources are limited by locational factors. 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would not have negative energy consequences. The site has a small amount of aggre- gate thinly distributed. There are other sites with much larger and more concentrated deposits that can help meet the County's needs. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the ESEE consequences, the Board finds that the Goal 5 resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. The County bases this decision on the following: (a) Although aggregate is in short supply in the County, this site represents a minuscule amount of the total aggregate needs of the County. (b) By its decision on other sites, the County has pre- served a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. These amounts are sufficient to meet the County's needs over the planning period. Within a five -mile radius of this 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 T14 site, the Board has in those decisions preserved at least 1.4 million cubic yards of aggregate materials. (d) The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, as amended by the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study gives great weight to protection of natural values in ripar- ian areas such as this one. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and that the present zoning for the site will be retained. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #246 :11413 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. MAP 4. MAP 5• CERTIFIED LETTER TO MR. GARY TEWALT DATED 8-19-87 6• CERTIFIED LETTER TO MR. GARY TEWALT DATED 4-8-87 7. PERMIT #3384 RENEWAL DATED 12-13-85 8• SAME AS ABOVE #7 9• APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OR FILL PERMIT DATED 2/9/81 10. PROPOSED USE INFORMATION SHEET 11. LETTER FROM IRA J. TROWBRIDGE DATED 5/20/80 12. PACKAGE OF PHOTOS 13. STAFF REPORT, ERATA SHEET AND ADDENDUM TO REPORT 14. COMPUTERIZED INVENTORY SHEET 15. NOTIFICATION MAPS 16. NOTIFICATION LIST 17. MYLAR OF TOPO. 18. LETTER TO MR. TEWALT DATED 6-19-89 19• LETTER FROM MR. DUGAN RECEIVED 8-8-89 20. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 21. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEARING MINUTES 22• BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECISION MINUTES 23. LETTER FROM ODFW 9-10-89 L Cil - 1149 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 248 Site Number 248, occupying a portion of tax lot 100 in Township 15 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 248 comprises approximately 120 acres and is located on Slayton Road one-quarter mile south of Highway 126 between Sisters and Redmond. The site.is owned by Keith Cyrus and is zoned SM and SMR. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU 40, LM, and EFU 20. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the econo- mic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 101 1150 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventorv. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 3.2 million cubic yards of cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located southwest of the intersection of the Redmond -Sisters Highway and Slayton Road. Access to the mining area is off the highway, roughly one-quarter mile west of the intersection. The site is level on the north and south ends. In the middle section, there are two small buttes, which is where the mining operation is located. There is a large area of cinder exca- vation along the west side of the site, in the middle area. The butte is slowly being removed to the level of the adja- cent field to the north. The west edge of the excavation appears to be a vertical wall. Directly to the east of the site is a farmed acreage. To the north is an undeveloped subdivision. Within one-half mile of the site are residential acreage properties, vacant land and farms. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route, with medium frequency of use, and medium use by sensitive raptors. 2. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent EFU 20 and EFU 40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 i0.1 - 1151 (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. This site is in plain view of Highway 126. (2) Impacts on deer would include further destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by continued surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and continued human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. (3) Impacts on raptor use would include destruction of cover for the raptors and displacement and destruction of food sources, increased human presence and noise, all of which would tend to drive raptors away from the immediate area. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10, MUA-10, EFU-20 and EFU-40 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 j () '1 - '1152 Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the EFU-80 zone would include: (1) At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. (2) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are a couple of mobile homes within close proximity to the site. There is an undeveloped subdivision nearby, but it is not possible to predict to what extent it is likely to be developed. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 0l 1153 already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling on Highway 126 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 612'5 I part of the reclamation process. There is evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 126 and Highway 20, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway main- tenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufa- cturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Des- chutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 255 101 " 1155 economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads, and that they serve as a sub- stitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect ag- gregate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: (a) This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. (b) Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource; this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. (c) This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highways 20 and 126. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 ,ti (d) This site is already in existence. (e) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (f) Highway 126 is the main highway between the cities of Sisters and Redmond and site 248 is readily visible from the highway. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 in the zone. Furthermore, use, and after reclamation become available for other L0,1 1157 surface mining is a transitional the land surface would then uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 L01111 - 1158 land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and in- creasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater distan- ces. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aa_Qregate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic and personal commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 io'l -, 1159 private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; (d) Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; (e) Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; (f) New excavation shall be sloped at a rate of 2 to 1; and (g) The site shall be fenced off from adjoining properties with safety fencing. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 Al l - 1160 the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advan- ces the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 I.: 01, - 1161 (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 5YI(,. 113 tr A TAB I,E OF CON -TENTS 1 (-/ S, ' SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: l � 1 1 L,U 2 r l 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Cover information sheet 3 - Map 4 -Map 5 - Maps 6 - Map 7 -Map 8 - Letter from John D. Beaulieu dated 7/14/87 9 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 9/29/86 10 - Mined Land Reclamation Permit issued 7/1/86 11 - Surface Mining Operating Permit issued 6/25/85 12 - Findings & Decisions dated 2/19/85 13 - Surface Mining Operating Permit issued 2/6/85 14 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 1/9/85 15 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 7/27/84 16 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 7/7/83 17 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 5/24/82 18 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 6/3/81 19 - Findings & Decision dated 6/26/80 20 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 5/16/80 21 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 4/28/80 GROUP A 22 - Ordinance #80-215 23 - Map 24 - Ordinance #80-215 25 - Memo dated 10/16/80 26 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 10/14/80 27 - Findings & Decision dated 8/29/80 28 - Deschutes County Planning Dept_ dated 7/9/?,) " f x TABLE OF CONTENTS SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: (page 2) 0 6 J 29 - Vicinity Information sheet 30 - Staff Report dated 5/27/80 31 - Same as above #30 32 - Same as above #30 33 - Findings & Decision (page 1 only) 34 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 5/17/80 35 - Look up sheets 36 - Application review file sheet 37 - Letter from Charles Trachsel dated 5/13/80 38 - Memo dated 5/7/80 39 - Revised Transmittal Letter for Zone Changes dated 4/30/80 40 - Zone Change Application dated 4/29/80 41 - Application review file sheet 42 - Mailing list for Site Plan Transmittals 43 - Zone Change information (Page 2 & 3) 44 - Map GROUP B 45 - Ordinance #80-212 46 - Memo dated 10/16/80 47 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 10/15/80 48 - Deschutes County Planning Dept. dated 7/9/80 49 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 7/9/80 50 - Staff Report dated 5/27/80 51 - Same as above #50 52 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 5/27/80 53 - Notice of Public Hearing (no date listed) 54 - Letter from Charles Trachsel dated 5/13/80 55 - Look up sheets 56 - Look up sheets 57 - Revised Transmit --al Letter for Zon= Changes dated 4/3230 TABLE OF CONTENTS SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: (Page 3) b 0 � � .1 1 1 L�V 4 � �,d 58 - Zone Change Application dated 4/29/80 59 - Application review file sheet 60 - Application review file sheet 61 - Memo dated 5/7/80 62 - Mailing List for Site Plan Transmittals 63 - Map 64 - Zone C::ange information (page 2 and 3) GROUP C 65 - Findings & Decision dated 2/19/85 66 - Site Plan Application dated 1/23/85 67 - Application review file sheet 68 - Site Plan Transmittal Letter dated 1/23/84 69 - Reclamation Plan Guideline & Format sheet 70 - Look up sheets 71 - Mailing list 72 - Maps 73 Vo4q kw�t R�clo..nno.}�vH pz v.�wi� 1—lo S$ 14 Go U}" i S,,o�r Nti win Tvt 7Z- ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 249 Site Number 249, occupying tax lots 2502 and 2505 in Town- ship 15, Range 10, Section 25, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of mineral and aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board deter- mines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 249 comprises approximately 12 acres and is located on Highway 20 approximately five miles southeast of Sisters. The site is owned by R. L. Coats and is currently zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned MUA-10 and EFU-20. This site was identified as containing rock resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the rock resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000 and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's mineral and aggregate resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identi- fied conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evalu- ated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, pro- tecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and three neighboring property owners. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 L011 -, I166 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes the contents of a 1977 conditional use application for earlier land use approval for mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 250,000 cubic yards of rock meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located on the south side of Highway 20 West, just east of Peterson Ridge Road. The area is roughly 5.5 miles southeast of Sisters and one- half mile west of Cloverdale Road. Access onto the site is a small road off the highway. The site is basically level with a slight slope down to the north. The site has highway frontage and appears to be natural along he western side. There are two sand/gravel pits on the site. The north pit is just off he highway and is highly visible from the highway. The second pit is further south, towards the middle of the site. The second pit is larger than the north pit. There is a small canal which winds through the property between the pits. The northeast area of the site is naturally vegetated. No improvements or utilities are located on the site. The area around the site is primarily rural residential land with many of the sites improved with average to good quality homes and mobile homes. The site appears to be within the Blue Chip Ranch subdivision. The sites surrounding the subject are primarily vacant at this time, with a few homes within a half -mile of the subject property. There is a residential acreage on the north side of the highway, oppo- site the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. 2. Scenic Values. The LM zoning designation shows a concern for protection of scenic values along Highway 20. Highway 20 offers scenic views of the Cascades in this area. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic values conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 '01 1167 impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the MUA-10 and EFU-20 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protec- tion of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses only in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. There was testimony at the hearing that there are two Arabian horse ranches in the area, although it was not specified how close they were to the site. The Board finds that the only conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses currently existing at the site or within the impact area area couple of residences. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 -L f..? '9. " 1 16 8 who would be attracted to the area to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and visually disturb the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those tra- velling Highway 20 who would be deprived of possible wild- life viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic as- sociated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Rock and aggregate are resources that are needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construc- tion and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Mr. Coats testified that this site is only used on highway jobs in the immediate area. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preser- ving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and con- struction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20. In this case, the primary economic consequence of failure to zone the site would be increased costs of hauling rock and aggregate sources to nearby highway jobs. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 1 1 7 0 streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the rock resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally dependent. Rock resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the rock resources along the Highway 20 corri- dor for highway maintenance. Deer habitat is continually being lost to new development. The site lies in a scenic view corridor of the Cascades along a heavily travelled road. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660- 16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 L0,11 1111 properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. In this case, there is little developed resi- dential property to be affected in any event. The site already has an existing mine. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, there is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development, personal landing strips, ore smelters, land- fills and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate and rock needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate and rock site takes on importance, as cumula- tively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 soi - 1173 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to the occupation and development of individual parcels of private property with economic value and quality of life and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting land uses. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the rock resource at this site. The Board finds that there is sufficient land available in the County where potential conflicting uses could be sited. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Wildlife restrictions as set forth in the ODFW letter of August 10, 1989. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 '01 - 1174 Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 • Loll 11 1J applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile only upon demonstration that the use will not cause an adjacent mine to violate DEQ standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the rock resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate and rock sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surround- ing conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. a 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 4dvw Io'l 1176 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #249 COVER INFORMATION SHEET COVER INFORMATION SHEET MAP MAP MAP GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/14/87 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/30/86 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/18/85 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/13/83 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/19/78 LETTER FROM JOSEPHINE & WILLIAM PIERCE DATED 3/3/77 LETTER FROM NANCY M. HALUS DATED 2/23/77 PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT DATED 2/9/77 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 2/9/77 LETTER FROM CARL M. WILLIAMS DATED 2/8/77 LETTER FROM PAUL STAEDELI DATED 2/7/77 LETTER FROM ANNA M. & JOHN W. SCOTT DATED 2/5/77 TELEGRAM FROM JAMES & ANGELA PHILPIN DATED 2/7/77 LETTER FROM JOSEPHINE & WILLIAM PIERCE DATED 2/3/77 LETTER FROM ROBERT E. EMERSON DATED 2/3/77 INFORMATION MAILED 1/28/77 TO ROBERT COATS CHECK LIST FOR NOTIFICATION MAPS 1 V 23. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE 24. NOTICE --OF CHANGE IN ASSESSED VALUATION 25. LETTER FROM R.L. COATS DATED 4/27/69 26. COMPUTERIZED SURFACE MINING INVENTORY SHEETS 27. APPRAISERS SHEET/STAFF REPORT 28. NOTIFICATION MAPS 29. NOTIFICATION LISTS 30. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 31. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 33 i'.x�r�1 c� Coenm�sic�+_erS <J,? ion m(nutc�� �y Bc),-Ai-6 C�mm���„crx! cS Yr?a�l rh'�nv-mss 2 ESEE Findings and Decision Site Nos. 251/278 Site Numbers 251 and 278, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989 and August 7, 1989 respectively. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies those preliminary decisions. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 251, occupying tax lot 1400 in Township 15, Range 12, Section 11 and tax lot 800 in Township 15, Range 12, Section 14 comprises approximately 25 acres and is located on Highway 126 where it intersects the Deschutes River. The site is owned by William Cherry and is currently zoned SM and LM. Site number 278, located immediately to the west of site number 251 and also abutting the Highway 126 corridor and the Deschutes River, occupies tax lot 901 in Township 15, Range 12, Section 14 and tax lot 1200 in Township 15, Range 12, Section 1200 and totals 12.18 acres. The site is owned by the State Department of Transportation. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report from an appraiser hired by the County to describe the site and its surroundings was entered into the record. During the ESEE hearings on these sites, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Coalition for the Deschutes, a representative of the Oregon Natural Resources Council, and a number of neighbors opposed to mining at the site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. In addition to documents generated for this Goal 5 process, the file includes materials concerning applications for fill and removal permits for flood control projects at the site. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that these sites have the following ag- gregate resources on their respective sites: Site 251 - 125,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate; Site 278 - 18,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. These sites are located along Highway 126 roughly 3.5 miles west of Redmond. Site 251 runs north between the Highway on the South to a bend in the Deschutes River. The western edge of the site sits on a gravel bench above the Deschutes River. The eastern area of the site is the edge of the river canyon and level farm land on top of the rimrock (at the far east of the site). The site has been mined previously, but the level of activity at the site is unknown. It appears from DOGAMI information that no use of the site has been made since at least 1979. The Deschutes River forms the northern border for this site. The site is primarily naturally vegetated, except where there has been mining and where there is a dilapidated home at the southern end of the property. The prior mining area covers approximately 1/2 of the site. Site 278 is adjacent to the Highway 126 right-of-way just to the west of site 251. The Deschutes River runs along the length of the western edge of the property to within under 50 feet. The site is slightly above the level of the Deschutes River on the southerly end, and is at a higher 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 10 It 1180 elevation at the northern end, as the river gradient drops away at this point. To the north is another property that cuts off access to the Deschutes River. The site is primar- ily naturally vegetated, except where there has been mining in the past. In the mined areas, the natural vegetation is coming back after reclamation. A representative of the Oregon Department of Transportation testified that there was sufficient sand and gravel left for one more highway job. The site has not been used since before 1970. To the north and east of these sites along the river are residential acreage homes along the rimrock. To the south is the Redmond -Sisters Highway and residential acreages. Cline Falls State Park is on the South side of the Highway along the river. On the opposite side of the river to the west is Eagle Drive. The site is highly visible from Eagle Drive and the homes off Eagle Drive, which overlook the Canyon. The site is also visible from Highway 126. The Deschutes River immediately adjacent to this site has historically had public use. The Cline Falls State Park property to the south of the site gives public access to the river canyon. In addition, the right of way for the his- toric Cline Falls Bridge, located directly to the west of the property gives public access to the River. This area constitutes one of the few easily accessible public access points to the Deschutes River north of Tumalo State Park. The river adjacent to this site is very narrow, slow moving, and deep, making for good swimming holes. The River has been diverted and dammed at the site at the historic Cline Falls powerhouse. There is a historic fish ladder on the east side of the falls. Upstream and down- stream from the dam, the river has been designated a state scenic waterway. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, ODFW has identified this area as having medium sensitive golden eagle use. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study (adopted as part of the comprehensive plan) identifies golden eagles as being a sensitive species in the County and notes that one of 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 101 - 1181 two golden eagle nests in the County is in the Deschutes Canyon downstream from Bend. In addition, the resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan lists the Deschutes River as having Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout. The County Comprehen- sive Plan calls for the County to support efforts by ODFW to manage appropriate reaches of rivers and streams. 2. Open space and scenic values. The County Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Zoning ordinance includes areas along the Deschutes River in the LM zone, which would protect scenic values 200 feet back from the river. This would apply primarily on site 251, since site 278 is further than 200 feet from the river for the most part. In addition, the LM zone applies to the sites due to their location along the Sisters -Redmond highway for 1/4 mile back from the highway. The purpose of such zoning is to protect the scenery visible from highway. The LM zone in this application includes the entirety of both sites. 3. Riparian habitat. The resource element of the County Comprehensive Plan identifies the area along the banks of the Deschutes River as being a sensitive riparian area. Riparian habitat has value for wildlife that use it for a forage and water source. Wildlife such as deer from adjacent areas may come to the area during the nighttime hours for water. In addition, riparian areas are important for fish. Site 251 includes riparian habitat along the river. The riparian area is narrow because of the cliffs along the river. Site 278 does not extend to the riparian area, since that sliver of land is in other ownership; however, it is close enough that activities on the site can affect the riparian area. 4. Scenic waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River is in the State Scenic Waterway program, except for the portion where the Cline Falls dam is sited. Such designation includes a 1/4 mile corridor on each side of the river upstream and downstream from the dam. The Board finds that these sites fall entirely within the scenic waterway. State scenic waterway designation is based on a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, historic, archeological, recreational and outdoor values. It appears from information in the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River Study 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 101 - 1182 that the outstanding attributes of the River in this segment would be recreational, scenic, and historic. Because of public access at the site, the river cor- ridor has a great deal of recreational use in this area. The adjacent state park and Highway 126 give the river additional scenic importance in this area. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz Study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportion of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. A survey of Deschutes County households established that 41.3% of resident househol- ds in Deschutes County make use of State Parks along the River north of Bend. The scenic and recreational values of the river at this point are enhanced by the abundant wildlife visible to visitors of the site. The Board finds based upon the testimony of a neighbor to the site that there are red- tailed hawks, blue heron, turkey vultures, and ducks that make use of this site, as well as the golden eagle mentioned by ODFW. 5. Historic and cultural resources. The staff report refers to the fact that the Deschutes Canyon was a transportation corridor for Native Americans travelling through Central Oregon. The River Study identified no cultural sites for these two sites. The river study does list two historic sites nearby these sites, the Cline Falls Bridge and the fish ladder at the Cline Falls dam. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and the testimony at the ESEE hearings, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space, scenic, and recreational values would be adversely affected by the removal of additional vegeta- tion and further excavation of the surface, the presen- ce of machinery at the site, and the noise and fugitive dust associated with mining activities. There was testimony at the hearing that the areas of the Des- chutes Canyon adjacent to this site are used by the public for swimming and other public uses. Users of the adjacent Cline Falls State Park would be disturbed by the noise and dust associated with surface mining. In addition, the truck traffic associated with surface 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 Ul -, 1183 mining at the sites would pose a danger for users of the State Park. (2) The noise associated with surface mining would adverse- ly impact on the golden eagle use of the area. Any use of the area by deer would likewise be impacted by the noise, dust, and truck traffic, as set forth in the staff report. Besides impacting the wildlife directly, such impacts would have an indirect effect on the public's enjoyment of open space, scenic, and recrea- tional values, due to the absence of wildlife viewing opportunities. (3) Although mining would take place up on the benches above the river, mining operations could adversely affect riparian habitat and fish resources through debris coming to rest in riparian zones and possible uncontrolled surface drainage, leading to increased sedimentation in the stream, further affecting fish spawning habitat and fish food sources. (4) Historic resources would probably not be impacted since they are not directly on the site. However, those coming to look at the historic sites would have their experiences marred by the noise, dust, and traffic associated with surface mining. The Board finds that fish and wildlife, riparian habitat and scenic values along the River conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat and riparian areas and scenic resour- ces, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust, increased human pre- sence, and water quality impacts as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact wildlife and their habitat. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 and EFU-40 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses, except motorcycle tracks, utility facilities, feedlots, landfills, other mining activities, personal use landing strips, and forest product processing are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 LU -1 �" 1184 uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. Because of its disposition of this matter on the basis of Goal 5 conflicts, the Board finds that it need not address land use conflicts any further. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. Because of the adjacent Cline Falls State Park, the site is likely to attract visitors. Recreation is taking increasing importance in the Deschutes County econ- omy; therefore, the indirect economic effects of surface mining could increase over time. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on scenic, wildlife, open space and recreational values as set forth above. Because of the public uses in the canyon nearby, these impacts could be substantial. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on the fish and wildlife and sensitive riparian habitat at the site. Surface mining activities would increase noise and traffic and reduce the available cover and forage at the site. In addition, noise could cause other wildlife such as golden eagles to avoid the site. Wildlife would be forced to leave the area adding more competition in other habitat areas. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortal- ity rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highway 126. 011 1185 the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the B well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 126 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 would result in increased costs for maintenance and con- struction on Highway 126. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of riparian and fish and wildlife resources and public open space and scenic values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the Highway 126 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances to nearby highway maintenance jobs. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the consequences, the Board finds that the wildlife resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. The facts supporting the Board's decision include the following: (a) Although aggregate is in short supply in the County, these sites represent a small percentage of the total aggregate in the County. Site 251 in particular at 18,000 cubic yards does not represent a great loss to the total supply. Furthermore, neither site has been 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 s -1 U I - 118 r' used in a long time, further testimony to their lack of overall importance. (b) By its decision on other sites, the County has pre- served a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. (c) The County has preserved at least 2 million cubic yards at sites 275, 322 and 461, all of which are within 10- 15 miles of this site by road. All of these sites have a greater quantity of aggregate material than do these combined sites. (d) The area is one of the few areas along the Deschutes River easily accessible to the public and is heavily used by the public. The site is valued by the public for its scenic and recreational resources. (e) The site represents one of only nine identified golden eagle areas in the County's comprehensive plan. In addition, deer habitat is continually shrinking due to increased development in the County's rural areas. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting scenic, open space and fish and wildlife habitat and resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and that present surface mining zoning for the site will be removed and replaced with more appropriate zoning to be determined at a later date. Furthermore, the Board will encourage the addition of the State Highway site to Cline Falls State Park. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 P1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. zo. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #251 COVER INFORMATION SHEET MAPS LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHEET GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/13/85 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/14/83 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/6/81 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/17/80 LETTER FROM WILLIAM CHERRY TO COUNTY APPRAISERS SHEET & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAPS NOTIFICATION LISTS COMPUTERIZED INVENTORY LISTS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MYLAR OF TOPO MAP ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES LETTER FROM JAN ERNST; ODOT PARKS & REC DIVISION 8/15/89 lc#a iom p-Dp.W 5 heck �i � nig � u#iS �x�3cZ1 0b Cbmm%6sione,5 Ciecas�on mina s r 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. to . 1. iol - 1189 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #278 INVENTORY SHEET NOTIFICATION MAPS APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORTS LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Morn 0)> V --4W q- io-,aq 0b Lomm i 56-1,10 MCI$ heae, �cj m � n u.�S AL1 66 Corn m*e;oSlo,ner 5 ciec:iscn n m i ncc.s • 1 2 3 4 i. 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • 26 Page OI - 1190 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF THE ) DETERMINATION OF THE ) ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL,) FINDINGS AND DECISION ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC ) CONSEQUENCES OF THE ) USE OF INVENTORY SITE ) NO. 271 (LIVESAY RD.) ) FOR SURFACE MINING. ) The Livesay Road site, also described as Tax ID No. 151036 800, Deschutes County Assessor's Office came before the Board of Commissioners for hearing on May 18, 1989. The Board continued the matter until June 7, 1989 to make a tentative decision. By adoption of these findings and decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that tentative decision this date. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, which was placed in the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or "Surface Mining." For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS The Livesay Road site comprises 240 acres and is located southwest of Harrington Loop, 1/2 mile west of Plainview Road, and is owned by Deschutes County. Livesay Road runs through the site, which is currently zoned SMR and WA and is designated for Agricultural, Surface Mining Reserve, Forest and Surface Mining, and Wildlife Area Combining Zone on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Adjacent property is zoned MUA 10, EFU 20, 1 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 • 1 F2 and SM. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page HEARING AND EXHIBITS A hearing on the proposal to classify the subject site for surface mining use was held before the Deschutes County Planning Commission on February 22, 1989. A de novo hearing was held before the Board of Commissioners on May 18, 1989. The Board had before it the record and minutes of the Planning Commission and also reviewed the list of Exhibits set forth in Exhibit "A" to these findings and decision. There were no prehearing contacts on this matter by Board members, no conflicts declared by Board members, and there were no other challenges to participation by Board members. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, and its implementing administrative rule, OAR 660-16-000 to 025. Because the subject site has already been included on the inventory of aggregate materials, no discussion of the quantity, quality and location of such materials is necessary. The Board adopts and believes the material in the surface mining inventory regarding this site, which contains approximately two million cubic yards of aggregate material. The staff report before the Planning Commission and this Board, which the Board believes, determines that there are conflicts between surface mining use on the one hand, and other Goal 5 uses on the other hand. The Board's decision is thus limited to determining a program to achieve compliance of the 2 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD)`;; MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law ^_000 One Ma, Attorneys Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 .r 1 2 3 4 • • 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 1192 County's Comprehensive Plan with Goal 5 under OAR 660-16-010. The Board does not reach the issue of conflicts between surface mining use of the subject site and uses not set forth in Goal 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Identification of Goal 5 Resources and Conflicts -- The Board believes, based on the staff report and the testimony of * * received at the May 18, 1989 hearing, that the following Goal 5 resources, previously identified in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, are conflicting uses with surface mining: open space, wildlife, and scenic values. Staff Report at 1. The Board further believes that human presence and noise, dust, and traffic are each specific conflicts between the aforementioned Goal 5 resources and surface mining, as set forth at pp. 2-5 of the staff report. 2. Dust -- The Board believes the testimony of Jack Myer, a registered professional engineer with 40 years experience in his profession, and Gary Hampton, a meterologist, which stated that the dust generated from this site was a fine substance which can travel great distances in the prevailing westerly winds. See Ex. 11. The Board also believes the testimony of Stosh Thompson regarding the adverse effects of dust on wildlife. The Board finds that dust generated at this site, even if limited to periods in which human activity is permitted in the Tumalo Deer Winter Range, an area which includes the subject site, occurs at times in which the area's greatest asset, i.e. its scenic beauty, 3 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD)`�4� MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Low 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221 -101 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • 26 Page 101 - 1193 is to be enjoyed by tourists. Scenic beauty and open space are given great value in the County Comprehensive Plan and the Board concludes that allowing surface mining would conflict with those values to the extent that it would be impossible to conserve such beauty and open space. Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that open space and scenic values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. A timber zone, which carries out the open space and scenic views portions of the County plan is determined by this Board to be a better means of carrying out Goal 5 and its administrative rule and the County Comprehensive Plan than designation of the site for surface mining. 3. Transportation -- In the site specific discussion of this site at p. 4 of the staff report, it is stated that only sporadic use would be made of this site. The Board believes the testimony of Mr. Rice, its Public Works Director, that 700 round truck trips would be generated by the use of the site for surface mining. The Board finds it unlikely as well that a 25 mile per hour speed limit could be imposed effectively under current and forseeable staffing levels and priorities of the Sheriff's Department. The Board finds that, in any event, use of the site could not be made during the closed season of the Tumalo Deer Winter 4 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221 -101 1 1194 1 Range, which is currently between November and March each year. 2 The Board also finds that, based on the testimony of Jim Behrens, 3 the local Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW") 4 Biologist, that there may be a need for an extension of the 5 closed season for one month on either side of the present closed 6 season. The Board further finds that the remaining months of the 7 year are the period in which the greatest number of tourists come 8 to the Bend -Sisters area and that unacceptable levels of 9 conflicts between trucks and other vehicles using the mining site 10 and tourist vehicles would occur. The Board believes and 11 accepts the testimony of Mr. Scott that the use of adjacent roads 12 by trucks and other vehicles using this site would have a • 13 deleterious effect on the local transportation system. 14 Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values 15 and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the 16 Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that open 17 space and scenic values should be used fully, to the detriment of 18 the use of the aggregate resource. 19 4. Human Presence and Noise -- The Board rejects the site 20 specific portions of the staff report (p. 5) which relate to 21 wildlife. The Board believes the testimony of Mr. Scott, who 22 testified as to the equipment typically used in a surface mining 23 operation of the nature of proposed on the subject site, which 24 would include trucks, loaders, grizzlies and crushers. 25 •26 The Board also believes the one witness who was qualified to testify as to noise impacts, Albert G. Duble Jr., an Oregon Page _ 5 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) (),��) 1142 MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 i 1 registered acoustical engineer. The Board further finds that the 2 applicant's engineer, Mr. Herbert, was not so qualified and 3 disbelieves his testimony. The Board finds that Mr. Duble 4 conducted a study of this site and presented a report (Ex. ) 5 to the Board on his findings and conclusions. 6 Mr. Duble found that aggregate mining on this site would 7 raise the ambient noise level more than 10 db, in violation of 8 OAR 340-35-035. Mr. Duble also stated that, in view of the 9 prevailing winds, it was unlikely any berms would be able to 10 reduce noise levels by more than 5 db. The Board believes and 11 accepts Mr. Duble's study and his testimony. 12 The Board also accepts and believes the testimony of Dr. • 13 Stosh Thompson, who holds a Masters in Biology and a Doctorate in 14 Zoology, and is the author of the report on which ODFW determined 15 to close the Tumalo Deer Winter Range for certain months. Dr. 16 Thompson operates a wildlife sanctuary in the area and testified, 17 and the Board believes, that the use of the subject site for 18 surface mining would conflict with the wildlife use of that site 19 and adjacent areas within the Winter Range. The Board also 20 believes the written and oral testimony to the same effect by 21 Kathy Miller and Mike Steele. 22 Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values 23 and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the 24 Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that 25 wildlife values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use 26 of the aggregate resource. Page (f j{' 1 � .+w. 6 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 S • 1 5. Economic Consequences -- The Board finds, on the basis of 2 Ex. , the map of aggregate sites available on federal lands, 3 and Ex. the letter from the United States Forest Service to 4 , dated 1989, that there are 5 other available sources of aggregate in the Bend -Sisters area for 6 the public sector. The Board further finds that the availability 7 of these sites will relieve the pressure on privately owned sites 8 for private aggregate use. The Board also finds that the level 9 of investment for use of the site proposed by the Public Works 10 Director is not justified by the use of the site for 10,000 cubic 11 yards per year. The Board also believes the testimony of Mr. 12 Scott, opponent's engineer who is well qualified to testify on • 13 matters of engineering geology and said that the resource on this 14 site was in the same alluvial fan as the Varco Site, shallow 15 (about 5 feet deep) and not unique. Mr. Scott submitted Exs. 5-8 16 to demonstrate that there were other available sites in the area 17 on federal property and that those sites were available for 18 County use. The Board accepts and believes such testimony. 19 The Board also finds that the effect on roads at and around 20 the subject site is considerable, as set forth in the fourth 21 paragraph at p. 12 of the staff report, which the Board accepts 22 and believes.l 23 24 1. "There is a potential cost involved to the County if mining is to occur at this site. 25 Mining activities cause a major increase of traffic both to and from the mining sites. 26 This increase in traffic may increase the rate of deterioration of the roads which bear Page 7 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 101 "' 119 1 The Board finds that the elimination of this site from use 2 for aggregate mining, or the elimination of any one site in the 3 county, except for site 308, "would not significantly impact the 4 total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County." (Staff Report at 5 p. 16.) The County has not eliminated any significant amount of 6 the 24 million cubic yards of aggregate which are on sites which 7 have thus far been determined to have uses conflicting with 8 aggregate resource use. Combined with the relative availability 9 of aggregate on federal lands, the Board concludes that there 10 would be little effect on public users of aggregate by the 11 elimination of this site from aggregate use. 12 The Board also finds that there would inevitably be effects 13 on recreational uses by permitting mining of the aggregate 14 resource and concludes that the risks of such mining to the 15 County's tourist industry would be unacceptably high. 16 Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values 17 and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the 18 Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that 19 wildlife, open space and scenic values should be used fully, to 20 the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. 21 6. Social Consequences -- The Board adopts the general 22 discussion of this matter at p. 13 of the staff report but 23 rejects the site specific discussion. The Board finds that the 24 25 the burden of this traffic. Cost of 26 rehabilitating or resurfaceing [sic] these roads could be quite high. Page 8 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD)�:.-3.? MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Itel 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 101 - 1198 subject site has open space and scenic values as part of the Tumalo-Sisters area and that the noise, dust, and traffic generated by the use of this site for surface mining adversely affects the tourist industry in this area. The Board also finds that the reduction of the numbers of deer and other wildlife affects the tourist industry over and above the inherent value of wildlife to the County. The Board also finds that, because of the availability of other sources of aggregate in the area that the social welfare of County residents and taxpayers remains substantially unaffected by the decision to allow conflicting Goal 5 uses fully. The decision to rezone the subject site to a resource use, rather than a surface mining or rural residential use, will also aid in retaining the wildlife, scenic view and open space character. 7. Energy Consequences -- The Board finds no significant energy consequence of designating the subject site for surface mining use, given the relative availability to public agencies of other sources of aggregate on federal lands. 8. Environmental Consequences -- The Board agrees with much of the general discussion of these consequences found at p. 14-15 of the staff report. The Board finds that the subject site is near, but not adjacent to a wildlife rehabilitation facility and believes the testimony of Ms. Steele that the facility would be adversely affected by the location of a surface mining operation in the area. The Board believes staff testimony that the subject site is within the Tumalo Deer Winter Range. 9 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD)4„ MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 n L-A 101 - 1199 1 The Board is not convinced that utilization of the subject 2 site for surface mining would ever enhance its environmental 3 value and finds no evidence in the record for such a conclusion. 4 Moreover, the Board has determined that adverse environmental 5 consequences on wildlife, as indicated in Mr. Duble's testimony, 6 is far greater than set forth in the staff report and, in fact, 7 rises to an unacceptable level. 8 The Board believes the testimony of Dr. Thompson, Ms. Miller 9 and Mr. Steele, that the effects of noise, traffic and occupancy 10 of the site will have significant adverse effects on wildlife 11 which cannot be mitigated during the period in which mining is 12 proposed to occur. In addition, the Board does not find that the 13 site can ever be .restored to wildlife use. 14 CONCLUSION 15 Based on the foregoing evaluation, the Board concludes that 16 the subject site should not be designated "SM" on the Deschutes 17 County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance map. 18 Dated this day of 1989. 19 20 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 21 FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON 22 23 Lois Bristow Prante, Chair 24 25 Gene Maudlin, Commissioner 26 Tom Throop, Commissioner Page 10 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 10 1200 EXHIBIT SCHEDULE SITE NO. 271 Date Color Received Exhibit Description Code Page Maps Blue 131 Memorandum from Public Works Blue 132 Letter from Jay S. Hampton Peach 19 Legal Description Blue 130 Cover Information Sheet Blue 129 Rock Site Field Evaluation Blue 133 Inventory Information Sheet Blue 134 Letter from R. T. Panuccio Peach 30 County -Owned Resource Inventory Blue 136 Copy of OAR 660-15 Blue 49 Maps Blue 135 Photos Peach 127 Factual Data Report by Larry Rice Gray 124 Petition Peach 111 Board of Commissioners' Hearing Minutes Fuchsia 115 Letter from Don Cruikshank Peach 102 Note from Elton F. O'Donnell Peach 85 Petitions Peach 86 Planning Commission Recommendation Fuchsia 116 Board of Commissioners' Decision Minutes Fuchsia 117 Resume of Albert Duble, Acoustical Engineer Gray 122 Larry Rice's Testimony Gray 121 Legal Description Gray 120 Staff Report Yellow 118 Packet of information submitted 3/10/86 (ZC-85-7) Peach 29 80 06-12 Letter from Patricia A. Cramer Peach 95 80 07-28 Letter from Kathy Harrison Peach 87 86 03-10 Letter & attachments from Kathy Harrison Peach 88 88 07-21 Letter from Dick Johnson/D.C. Road Department Gray 99 88 11-16 Letter from John & Helen Meier Peach 1 88 12-07 Letter from Kathleen Miller Peach 52 89 01-16 Century West/Geotechnical Evaluation Gray 119 89 01-27 Letter from Dave Jaqua Peach 89 89 01-30 Letter from Kathy Miller Peach 2 89 02-10 Letter from Frank Bales Peach 50 89 02-12 Note from Dorothy Stevens Peach 53 89 02-12 Letter from John W. Grant Peach 54 89 02-13 Letter from Bill Stevens Peach 55 89 02-13 Letter from John W. Grant Peach 4 89 02-13 Letter from Bill Stevens Peach 100 89 02-13 Letter from Gary Hayden Peach 3 89 02-14 Letter from Sharon M. Wolbert Peach 93 89 02-14 Letter from Lloyd T. Hampton Peach 94 89 02-14 Letter from Rich & Corrine Rago Peach 8 99 02-14 Letter from Bill Stevens Peach 5 89 02-14 Letter from Mr. Keisow Peach 6 89 02-14 Letter from Mr. Mrs. Z. J. Peach 7 Al - 1201 89 02-14 Letter from Sharon Wolbert Peach 98 89 02-15 Letter from Frank Bales Peach 14 89 02-15 Letter from Sharon M. Wolbert Peach 15 89 02-15 Letter from Myron & Marian Gustafson Peach 11 89 02-15 Letter from Cameron & Martha Thomas Peach 13 89 02-15 Letter from Connie Bruneau Peach 10 89 02-16 Letter from George J. & Barbara -Lee Winterfield Peach 17 89 02-16 Letter from Barbara Butler Peach 16 89 02-16 Letter from Mrs. Linda Meyers Peach 18 89 02-17 Letter from John T. & Helen S. Meier Peach 23 89 02-17 Letter from Christopher G. Carr Peach 22 89 02-17 Letter from Mrs. Willard Mitchell Peach 20 89 02-17 Letter from Robert & Betty Harries Peach 56 89 02-17 Letter from Sara Vickerman Peach 57 89 02-17 Letter from Brigitte K. Gager Peach 21 89 02-19 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 90 89 02-19 Letter from Kathy Miller Peach 58 89 02-20 Letter from Dennis Nason Peach 62 89 02-20 Letter from ? Peach 59 89 02-20 Letter from Greg Wolfe Peach 61 89 02-20 Letter from Paul Dewey Peach 60 89 02-21 Letter from Marvin A. Larson Peach 37 89 02-21 Letter from Shirley Conley Peach 38 89 02-21 Letter from Sara Vickerman Peach 36 89 02-21 Letter from Paul & Annece Davis Peach 40 89 02-21 Letter from Robert E. & Betty J. Harris Peach 39 89 02-21 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 33 89 02-21 Letter from Homer Williamston Peach 24 89 02-21 Letter from Laura Sprengel Peach 32 89 02-21 Letter from Milton C. Sparks Peach 41 89 02-21 Letter from Don Cruikshank Peach 34 89 02-21 Letter from Edward W. Styskel Peach 35 89 02-21 Letter from Donna Kennedy Peach 31 89 02-21 Letter from Jan Volz Peach 42 89 02-21 Letter from Eric Dolson Blue 114 89 02-21 Note from Betty Allen Peach 63 89 02-22 Letter from Paul Dewey Peach 25 89 02-22 Packet of letters from Kathy Miller Peach 28 89 02-22 Message from Linda Clempel & Joe Cannon Peach 26 89 02-23 Letter from Mark Becker Peach 44 89 02-23 Letter from Ted Hurd Gray 45 89 02-23 Letter from ODFW Buff 46 89 02-23 Letter from Duane Hansen Peach 47 89 03-21 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 140 89 03-22 Letter from Dennis Nason Peach 110 89 03-28 Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Barry Frazier Peach 64 89 04-01 Letter from Milton & Barbara Sparks Peach 65 89 04-05 Letter from Rod and Sandy McDonald Peach 66 89 04-05 Letter from Amos & Amy McDonald Peach 67 89 04-12 Letter from Dr. and Mrs. Ray Walpole Peach 69 89 04-12 Letter from Dennis Nason Peach 68 99 04-13 Letter from Ken Davis Peach 48 89 04-13 Letter from Barbara -Lee & George Winterfield Peach 70 89 04-14 Letter from Isabel Smith Peach 71 'a.�j 5." of - 1202 89 04-18 Letter from Milt & Barbara Sparks Peach 72 89 04-18 Letter from Corrine Rago Peach 73 89 04-20 Letter from Charles & Marilyn Pavone Peach 7.4 89 04-22 Letter from Robert & Betty Harries Peach 75 89 04-22 Letter from Ian & Debra Carter Peach 76 89 04-23. Letter from -Alan & Linda Parmenter Peach 77 89 04-23 Letter from Barbara Butler Peach 78 89 04-24 Letter from Cameron B. Thomas Peach 139 89 04-26 Letter from Martha Thomas Peach 43 89 04-29 Letter & attachments from Brockway Farms Peach 79 89 05-01 Letter from Grace Bons Williamston Peach 138 89 05-04 Letter from John and Anna Scott Peach 105 89 05-04 Letter from Richard A. Rago Peach 96 89 05-04 Letter from ODFW Buff 128 89 05-05 Letter from Gary D. Seaquist Peach 106 89 05-05 Letter from Michael Nelson Peach 113 89 05-05 Ponderosa Cascade Property Owners Peach 107 89 05-05 Letter from Debbie & Ray Wagner Peach 109 89 05-09 Letter from G. W. & Rosemary Johnson Peach 112 89 05-09 Letter from G. W. & Rosemary Johnson Peach 97 89 05-10 Letter from Eric Dolson Blue 80 89 05-12 Letter from Steven D. Olds Peach 103 89 05-12 Letter from Ken Davis Peach 137 89 05-15 Letter from F. Peter Boehm, M.D. Peach 81 89 05-16 Letter from Gregory C. Musgrave Peach 126 89 05-16 Letter from Roger Borine Peach 83 89 05-16 Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Barry Frazier Peach 82 89 05-17 County Roads Serviced by Livesay Site Gray 123 89 05-17 Memo from the Nasons Peach 84 89 05-17 Letter from Sandra Olds Peach 108 89 05-18 Winter Wildlife Refuge Species Listing Peach 125 89 05-19 Letter from Larry Rice/D.C. Road Department Gray 104 89 05-25 Opponent's Concluding Comments Peach 91 89 06-05 Letter from Warren & Rosemary Johnson Peach 92 12 U 3 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 273/274 Site Number 273/274, occupying tax lots 100 and 700, respec- tively, in Township 15 South, Range 11, Section 17, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 273/274 comprises approximately 240 acres and is located adjacent to the County landfill on Fryrear Road, one and one-half miles south of Highway 126. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is currently zoned SMR. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 ( 12U4 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife and Larry Rice, Deschutes County Director of Public Works. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 75,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. This resource is located entirely in the canyon that divides the two sites. It would be used by the County for road maintenance and construction pur- poses. A geotechnical evaluation performed on the site by Century West Engineering questioned whether mining would be economi- cal on the narrower section of the canyon. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 273 is off Fryrear Road, which is roughly seven miles east of Sisters on the McKenzie Highway. This site is to the west of Fryrear Road at the Fryrear landfill running from the canyon north up the hill. The south end of the site is at the bottom of the head of Deep Canyon. To the north, the site climbs to a plateau area near the middle of the site. The bulk of the site is on the plateau above the canyon. The site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees and sagebrush. Site 274 is to the west of Fryrear Road at the Fryrear landfill immediately to the south of site 273. The north end of the site is at the bottom of the head of Deep Canyon. to the south, the site climbs to a plateau area near the middle of the site. The bulk of the site is on the plateau above the canyon. The site is natural and drainage appears adequate. The site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees and sagebrush. Directly northeast of the site is the Fryrear landfill (site 275). The rest of the surrounding property is vacant with a large farmed field to the south. Fryrear Butte is one-half mile to the west of the site. There are a couple of resi- dential properties within one-half mile of the site, but none are visible from the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 )"P10t 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, the resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be sensitive habitat for golden eagles. The presence of golden eagles in the area was confirmed by Larry Rice during the ESEE process. 2. Open space and scenic values. Although the staff report indicates scenic and open space values, the area has not been specially identified in any way for scenic values. Consequently, such values are not considered to be a resource at the site. The Board finds that wildlife habitat conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of wildlife habitat, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human pre- sence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact wildlife and their habitat. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses, except motorcycle tracks, utility facilities and personal use landing strips are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that of the identified conflicting allowed or conditional uses, only a couple of residences currently exist to the south of the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 Al - 12 0 G primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. The site is not likely to attract visi- tors, given that it is adjacent to a County landfill. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area and visitors come to the site only for landfill disposal purposes, the social consequences of reduced wildlife viewing opportunities would be non-existent. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and the eagle population of the site. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find .other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortal- ity rate for the area's wildlife. The noise associated with the mining likely would cause the golden eagles to abandon their nest. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 W tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The eagle population would likely also be scared away by mining activity. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 G(� 1200 failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. The Board finds that the economic benefit of mining this site may be limited since according to the geotechnical survey, a portion of the deposit may be uneconomical to mine. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of deer and raptor habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the consequences, the Board finds that the wildlife resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 • • 1C� 1209 The County bases this decision on the following: (a) Although aggregate is in short supply in the County, this site represents about .001% of the total aggregate needs of the County. (b) Portions of this deposit would be uneconomical to mine due to the configuration of the canyon. (c) By its decision on other sites, the County has pre- served a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. That amount is sufficient to meet the County's needs over the planning period. (d) The amounts preserved include a nearby County site of much greater volume, 175,000 cubic yards. (e) The site represents one of only nine identified golden eagle areas in the County's comprehensive plan. In addition, deer habitat is continually shrinking due to increased development in the County's rural areas. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and that present surface mining zoning for the site will be removed and replaced within EFU-40 zoning. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 A 1113 I T A 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 1L. i0l 1210 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #273 SURFACE MINING INVENTORY SHEET NOTIFICATION MAPS APPLICANTS STATEMENT ON QUALITY & QUANTITY APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT LETTER FROM W.H. BOYER LETTER FROM AUDUBON LETTER FROM P. HERFORD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MYLAR TOPO MAP lq-fko- imrr, OIDFa tW mrd O� Cvr�rri�55tone r5 hee r'� �cj rrm %%l acs -60atd 06 deUScon m+ nuA32S TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #274 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS i 01- - 1211 4. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS AND STAFF REPORT 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 7. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP �1 CAC o (,J U ` ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 275 Site Number 275, occupying tax lot 2400 in Township 15 South, Range 11, Section 16, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 275 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located on Fryrear Road one and one-half miles south of the McKenzie Highway. The site is owned by Deschutes County and constitutes a part of the Fryrear Landfill. The site is cur- rently zoned SMR. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 i0l - 1213 In addition, testimony was received from Larry Rice, Deschutes County Public Works Director. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 175,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is the Fryrear Landfill located on Fryrear Road. The McKenzie Highway is one and one-half miles north of the site. The site is at the head of Deep Canyon. The canyon (gully) cuts through the northwest corner of the site. The vegeta- tion is natural juniper trees and sagebrush, except where the landfill is. Deep Canyon does not have any running surface water in it. The area surrounding the site is all vacant land. There are a couple of residential acreage properties to the north along Fryrear Road, which are over one-half mile away. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to be adjacent to sensitive golden eagle habitat. 2. Open space and scenic values. Although the staff report indicates that open space and scenic values are an attribute of this site, the Board finds that there are no such values here. The site is an existing landfill. The Board finds that wildlife habitat resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 ()310 i 0 l - 1.215 Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area and visitors come to the site for landfill disposal purposes, the social consequences of reduced wildlife viewing opportunities would be non-existent. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and raptor habitat. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortal- ity rate for the area's wildlife. In this case, such adverse effect are occurring in any event due to the site's use as a landfill. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is some evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. Zoning for surface mining would bring to this landfill site reclamation requirements where none now exist. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event at this site due to its landfill use. In addition, aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. Deer and raptor habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 s 312 101 - 121E would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes that preserving of aggre- gate resources by public entities such as Deschutes County for highway maintenance and construction needs can result in reduced costs for public highway maintenance and construc- tion. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 �1crs 101 - 1217 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of deer and raptor habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resources, wildlife resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development. 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would not have much, if any, energy consequences due to the present use of this site as a landfill. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the wildlife habitat and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in"limited supply in the County and there is a need for aggregate near highways such as the McKenzie Highway for highway maintenance. Deer and raptor habitats are continually being lost to new develop- ment. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660- 16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the deer and raptor habitat. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that there is little development in this 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 f 314 , 01 -, 121 3 area, property values do not appear to be a concern in any event. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site would be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with any existing land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. It does not appear that there are any existing land uses to be impacted, however. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 126 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of the few uses identified above, all uses in the surrounding zoning desig- nations are classed as noise -sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock opera- tions. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 M 5 I ()�1 1219 yards and sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 `_ 31 G 0l -^ 1220 property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise impacts shall be mitigated by buffering and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Wildlife recommendations of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as set forth in this ESEE process for sites recommended for winter range and special wildlife conditions. Such limitations are to apply to process- ing of sand and gravel only and not to dirt; (e) Processing is to occur on the east side of site 275 only, away from the raptor nests. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure from processing will offer protection for deer at the site. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter processing limitations will not be unduly restrictive, since 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 ,317 it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses.and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited Closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 i01 - 124"2 to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Any existing conflicting land uses.are protected by the requirements in the zoning ordinance that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise stan- dards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface distur- bance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 �xf�(13i-rA 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #275 INVENTORY SHEET LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL NOTIFICATION MAPS LEGEND & INVENTORY SHEET FROM PUBLIC WORKS APPRAISERS SHEET & STAFF REPORT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FROM CENTURY WEST 1/16/89 MYLAR OF TOPO MAP BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECISION MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION LETTER FROM ODFW 9-10-89 122': F 3328 � 1224 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 277 Site Number 277, occupying tax lot 1100 in Township 15 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 11, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 277 comprises approximately 20 acres and is located approximately one and one-half miles east of Sisters on Highway 126. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 0321 (!. 125 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife and two neighboring residents. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel meeting Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located on the south side of the Redmond -Sisters Highway, roughly one and one- half miles east of Sisters. The site has natural vegetation around the edges and is cleared in the middle where an existing pit and storage area are located. The pit is roughly two to three acres and the storage area is roughly five acres. To the west are two large open fields; the southern field is currently being farmed; to the south is vacant land; to the north of the site, across the highway are residential prop- erties. The gravel mining operation can be seen from a couple of these properties and the road. Within one-half mile of the property is Squaw Creek to the north, along with residential properties, and primarily farms and residential acreage properties in other directions. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's LM zoning for shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 126. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 { ; 302 with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses, except motorcycle tracks, personal landing strips and utility uses are conflicting in that full protec- tion of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that the existing conflicting allowed or conditional uses consist of residential properties across the highway to the north. Two neighboring residents opposed zoning the site for surface mining due to the impacts of noise, dust and truck traffic on their residential use of nearby properties. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 i 0 , I - 1227 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and exacerbate an existing visual disturbance. The social consequences would be felt by both residents and those travelling Highway 126 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscar- red landscape. Such impacts would be lessened by the fact the mine already exists. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and scenic views along the Highway 126 corridor. Continued surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some deer might be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. The operator would be required to reclaim the site in any event, unless it were grandfathered. B. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highways 20 and 126. the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. Deer habitat is 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 319 A. in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the Highway 126 corridor could only be protected by precluding or limiting mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 126 and near Highway 20 would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the Highway 126 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 126 corridor for highway maintenance. Deer habitat is continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 i ()I 123U While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project, and two neighboring residents testified to that effect. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highways 20 and 126 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 �0- - 1231 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of the uses identified above as non -conflicting, all uses in the sur- rounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding con- flicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place con- straints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and site 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is partially undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 jol ^ 1232 cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 126 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 126 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this site outside the Sisters urban growth boundary would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 126. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. With that commitment comes economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The Board finds that there is sufficient undeveloped land in the County to accommodate any displaced uses. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 0 iOl -,, 1233 (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Wildlife shall be protected under the terms and condi- tions set forth in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife letter of August 10, 1989, contained in this file, including shut -down of crushing and blasting operations from December 1 through April 30. (e) Limitation on extraction of material to five acres at one time, with on-going reclamation (subject to review and approval by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.) (f) Placement of processing operations and equipment for the mining at a location on-site that will permit such operation within the sound and dust level limitations required by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). (g) Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing and transportation of the material that meet DEQ vehicle noise level requirements. (h) Use of the site shall be primarily for storage. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter restrictions will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 } i0l - 12.34 adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 ► . 1235 aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 E X4-41 B IT A SOCC- 2 ✓'4AP--> 3 _ arw► s a,,rs C,o w OX" -V* s St4 Levu � �. Co tei 2S I98'7 /4,074 In(--kmCs . E .Tomo y -u a, lqv e 7,,,,,o ,� o ? - ObOT 0- �QAlninq Com�miSSion �Qc_om1�2n � q ah. -6jX IL.1 1237 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 282 Site Number 282, occupying tax lot 100 in Township 17 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 8, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 282 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located in the southeast corner of the northeast corner of section 8. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned F-2. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 i(ji 1233 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is an inactive surface mine which has not previously had DOGAMI permits. It is located in the middle of land owned by Crown Pacific and appears to have been used in the past for logging road construction. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route, with medium frequency of use, and medium use by sensitive raptors. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include [further] destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by [continued] surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and [continued] human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migra- tion. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 t 101 -1239 such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the surrounding area consist of forest land owned by the subject property owner in at least one-half mile in all directions. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. [These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined.] 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 101 - 1240 In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 101 1241 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 I0-1 1242 Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 101 - 1243 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 i0l 1244 undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 0l - 1245 PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to five acres at one time, with on-going incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. f. Wildlife conditions set forth in the ODFW letter of August 10, 1989 that is part of this file. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 342 124G zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 101 - 1247 resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 r TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #282 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET 4. NOTIFICATION/MAP SHEET 5. STAFF REPORT 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP iJ'�. 1248 ESEE Findings and Decision W1 1 2 4 9 Site No. 283 Site Number 283, occupying a portion of tax lot 100 in Township 17 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 35, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 283 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located in the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 35, approximately one-quarter mile west of Bull Springs Road. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 and WA. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 'J. � ,� {� L_ In addition, testimony was received from the U egon dep r�- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of fair quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is an inactive cinder site west of Bend owned by Crown Pacific. In the past, the site has been used for the construction and maintenance of logging roads. The site is located in the Tumalo deer winter range and adjoins the Deschutes National Forest. The property to the northeast and south is owned by Crown Pacific for over one mile in those directions. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route, with medium frequency of use, and medium use by sensitive raptors. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include [further] destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by [continued] surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and [continued] human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migra- tion. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 got m 1251 water sources at the site. Neither would soil compac- tion be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-2 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 'I.QI - 1252 The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 ifyi 12b3 mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 _:)A. 10111 n 1254 failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimitable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to logging roads would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 101 12b5 C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on logging roads. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 a(rte1 125E 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 101 -, 1257 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 125 Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. Wildlife conditions set forth in the ODFW letter of August 10, 1989 recommending this site for winter range and special wildlife considerations. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require - 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 01 1260 b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 1( '. 1261 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #283 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET 4. STAFF REPORT 5. NOTIFICATION MAP 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 101 - 1262 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 288 Site Number 288, occupying tax lot 700 in Township 17, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 11, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 25, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Prante abstaining, that this site should not be so clas- sified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 288 comprises approximately 20 acres and is located off of Tyler Road, approximately eight miles northwest of Bend. The site is owned by the Tumalo Irrigation District and is zoned EFU-20 and WA. Surrounding property is zoned EFU-20, SMR, F-2 and WA. The staff report indicates that surrounding areas are zoned LM; however the area is not within the LM zone protect- ing the views along Highway 20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 r� 4 t• .do- i0l - 1263 protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site; Considerable testimony was also received by R. L. Coats, who stated he tested the site and found it had good aggregate, and numerous property owners in opposition to the possible surface mining of the property. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 250,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. The Board's inventory findings on this site are set forth in the inventory ordinance, Deschutes County Ordinance No. 90-025. 2. Site Characteristics. This parcel is located on Tyler Road which runs through the length of the subject site. The majority of the site is north of Tyler Road. Tyler Road is a dirt/gravel road in fair condition. The site slopes gently down toward the east with dry drainage running through the property. The site is predominately pine trees with some juniper and sagebrush. The Tumalo feed canal runs just south of the site. The site is in a natural state and there is no evidence that prior mining has occurred. The subject site is surrounded by vacant and improved residen- tial acreage properties and agriculatural land. There are numerous residential/ranch properties on 10 to 40 -acre parcels within one-half mile of the site. At least two residences are located on the rimrock above the site. These homes have mountain and terrain views over the subject property. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as being a part of the Tumalo deer winter range. Considerable evidence in contained in the file regarding the importance of this deer winter range. ODF&W has also identified the site as having medium - sensitive raptor use. Area residents testified that 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 (), r = a i,,f 101 , IZ64 red-tailed hawks, sharp -shinned hawks, and bald eagles have been observed in the area. 2. Open space values. The site's zoning as EFU-20 indi- cates important open space values. Open space enhances the scenic views from this area toward the Cascades and habitat for deer and other wildlife. Testimony of areas residents stressed the spectacular views from the area toward the Cascades and the surrounding landscape. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and testimony from area residents, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Testimony from area residents raised the concern that fugitive dust emissions from the site and trucks hauling material away from the site could interfere with the views of the Cascades and the surrounding high desert. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. In addition, the board finds that the nature of the aggregate at the site would require extensive blasting. The impact of all this would generally be to displace deer from such areas. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife and open space values in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-20 and the F-2 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting and processing) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. 3. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. Several residents spoke to the fact that they chose to purchase homesites in the this area due to the natural beauty of the area and specifically checked the zoning prior to purchasing to determine whether the area had surface mining activity nearby. 3. Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. This could impact all uses in the EFU-20 zone, except that agricultural uses could be made on the unexcavated portions of the property. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, all possible uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses, only residential uses presently occur. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and open space do not have any economic values attached to them. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 101 - 1266 Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and would impact open space values. The social consequences of such impacts would be the reduced wildlife viewing opportunities to area residents and the negative impacts on open space values from fugitive dust. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and open space. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that preservation of this site would likely have overall positive energy consequences due to the fact that this site is located closer to development activities on the northwest side of Bend than any other commercial site. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 01 -, 126.1 Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 i 0l - 1 268 improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of open space and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggre- gate resource, wildlife resources and open space resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site could involve increased haulage distances of aggregate materials to the development projects occurring on the northwest side of Bend. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would therefore more likely than not have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources values at the site are relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: a. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. b. Deer habitat in the County is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, Board finds that the conflicting deer habitat value should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2) the conflicting natural resource value of deer habitat should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ - 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 10 " 1269 ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The Board finds that while the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of sur- rounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by area residents, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, blasting, and fugitive dust produced by the proposed surface mine. The Board finds that the impacts of truck traffic on Tyler Road would be significant due to its poor and unpaved condition. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals could have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to development sites north and west of Bend would compare favorably with haul distances from other sources in the County. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 1011 - 1270 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 13 above. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development, could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments on the northwest side of Bend would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commit - 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 160 12�� ment is accompanied by economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting deer habitat resource and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of aggregate, which com- bined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 R � l i 10 1, m '12. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #288 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. LETTER FROM JANET L. BOETTCHER DATED 5/27/80 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORTS 5. LETTER NORM BEHRENS 8/21/89 6. LETTER DANIEL KEARNS 8/13/89 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR 9. LETTER FROM DAN KEARNS 10/7/89 10. LETTER FROM JAMES ATTERHOLT 9/5/89 11. LETTER FROM JOHN C. BELL 8/28/89 12. LETTER FORM JAMES ATTERHOLT 8/21/89 13. LETTER FROM KELLY SMITH & SANDE SCHMIDT 8/18/89 14. LETTER FROM ORE. HUNTERS ASSOC. 8/17/89 15. LETTER FROM WESLEY MILLER 8/25/89 16. LETTER FROM WESLEY MILLER 8/16/89 17. LETTER FROM DANIEL KEARNS 8/13/89 I`b. leA.e✓ Om ODF--ccs q-1O-sli. 1g' rd db �Omrn ►sS�rS heac►c rriri s 20.� cd 06 comrri ►-S 10 ne4s deus►�n cyit (Zt3CitS 01 - 1273 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 292 Site Number 292, occupying tax lot 900, in Township 17 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 25, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Prante abstaining, that this site should not be so clas- sified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 292 is located on Johnson Road in Tumalo just south of its intersection with Tyler Road and comprise approxi- mately 40 acres. The site is owned by R.L. Coats and is zoned EFU-20, LM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20, SM and SMR. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding are was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 12 7 4 Testimony was also received from R.L. Coats, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Hunters Association and numerous neighbors from adjacent residential properties. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 326,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics and Factual Background. The Board finds the following facts to be true. This site is in Tumalo along the east side of Johnson Road opposite the point where Tyler Road intersects Johnson Road. The site is immediately adjacent to Site 293. The lot is heavily treed and has not been mined previously. R.L. Coats testified during the ESEE hearings that he purchased the site primarily as a buffer to protect site 293 from conflicting development. He also testified that the site did not have as much sand and gravel on it as did site 293 and that he would not be needing the site for 30 years, given the amount of gravel he had at his existing sites. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Open space and scenic. The site is subject to LM zoning along the Johnson Road corridor to protect the scenic views along Johnson Road. 2. Wildlife habitat. The site has a wildlife combining zone overlay in recognition that this site is within the Tumalo deer winter range. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer winter range. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space, scenic and recreational values are impacted by removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 of L01 12*r5 infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. In addition, noise from processing operations, heavy equipment and trucks can intrude on recreational open space lands, such as park lands. Johnson Road is a heavily used road connecting residen- tial properties in the area to the Bend urban area. The visual impacts of surface mining would be readily observed from Johnson Road. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construc- tion of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140, 4.150 and 4.230 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the EFU-40 zone to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclusion of other uses. (2) On those portions of the site available for other development, the impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensitive uses, as defined below and aesthetic impacts. These uses would include all uses within the zone except utility uses. Surrounding zones (EFU-20, RR -10) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, feed lots, personal use landing strips and other mining uses. The Board finds that existing residential development at the nearby subdivisions and other residential properties would be adversely affected. Many of these residents testified concerning the probable impacts of noise on their quality of life. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. Because of the site's proximity to nearby subdivisions and to Tumalo State Park, truck traffic conflicts would be substan- tial. Neighbors testified about their use of area roads for walking and biking being threatened. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The visual impacts would also affect those using Johnson Road. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. Such surrounding mining devel- opment lowers the level of conflict at this site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 01 -^ 12 .t suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to the Johnson Road scenic corridor. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife, scenic, and recrea- tional attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic qualities of the Johnson Road corridor. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remain- ing forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views from Johnson Road would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topography. In addition, the recreational attributes of the Deschutes corridor would be impacted by the noise, dust, and truck traffic associated with surface mining. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to the Bend-Tumalo market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 101 -, 1278 such as this that are convenient to urban market areas and processing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The site has great signifi- cance due to its large size and close -in location. Unlike many other site, loss of this particular site would defi- nitely be felt in the Bend-Tumalo market area. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend-Tumalo market area and that consequently preserva- tion of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower aggre- gate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 0,1 1279 sources of supply cannot be created by man. The Board finds that given the size and close -in location of this site, is has great significance. Unlike many other sites, loss of this particular site would at some point have some impact on the aggregate supply and price of aggregate in the local market. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic, wildlife, and recreational values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental conse- quences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources, and scenic and recreational resources are often limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development and cannot be recreated. Scenic and recreational resources such as Tumalo State Park likewise are limited in number and cannot easily be recreated by manmade substitutes. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the Goal 5 resources are more important than the conflicting aggregate values. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Although this is a relatively large aggregate deposit, it is not as large as site 293 immediately to the south (which has ten times the resource) and the operator testified that given the amount of aggregate available 7 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 292 d Lill :1280 to him, this site was more valuable to him as a buffer for his current operations than as an operation sand and gravel mine. (b) Through its decisions on other sites, the Board has protected 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate materia- ls, an amount sufficient to meet the County's sand and gravel needs for the planning period. (c) This site is not an existing mining site; (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development and cannot be recreated elsewhere; and (e) Johnson Road is a heavily travelled road and a main arterial leading from Bend to the scenic Tumalo area. Accordingly, the scenic corridor is an important open space and scenic resource for both visitors and resi- dents. Such resources have importance for the regional tourism economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2), it will allow the conflicting use fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. Some neighboring residents expressed concern about their property values. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, as mentioned above, trend analy- sis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Testimony during the ESEE hearings estab- lished that Johnson Road is a narrow road and not the best 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 roadway for handling large amounts of truck traffic. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to recreational sites such as Tumalo State Park. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity would be felt primarily in the nearby residences to the southwest and northwest and by the users of Tumalo State Park to the northeast, as set forth above. The high level of use of Tumalo State Park in the summertime would heighten the land use conflicts at this site. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, co hicts12 b arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, this is one of a handful of sites that would definitely have an impact on the ability to meet the community's aggregate needs due to its size and location close to the Bend-Tumalo market. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic and recreational values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment.because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Acrareaate_Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the mineral and aggregate use of the property. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 Al 1283 This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), of paragraph 12 above. (b) Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. The nearby residences are well established subdivisions and individual homes in the area. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16- 010(2) it will allow the conflicting uses fully. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife and scenic resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and will retain its present EFU-20 zoning. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 0 iol 1284 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #292 COVER INFORMATION SHEET COVER INFORMATION SHEET MAP GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/14/87 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/30/86 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/18/85 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/14/83 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/19/78 MAP OF PARCEL WITH GENERAL LOCATION OF MINERAL DEPOSIT 3/23/89 MAP OF SITES OWNED BY R.L. COATS WITH MINERAL DEPOSITS CONTRACT OF SALE ON PARCEL 8/21/78 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/10/88 LETTER FROM KITTY WARNER 3/10/89 LETTER FROM.HERB HUNT 4/1/89 LETTER FROM GREG HENDRIX 4/6/89 LETTER FROM DAN KERN 4/23/89 LETTER FROM GREG HENDRIX 4/24/89 OBJECTION STATEMENT FROM GREG HENDRIX 5/10/89 NOTIFICATION MAPS STAFF REPORT LETTER G. HENDRIX 3/8/89 1 Al - 1285 22. LETTER J. NORTHON 5/10/89 23. LETTER G. HENDRIX 6/30/88 24, PETITION OF OBJECTION FILED GREG HENDRIX 5/23/89 25. LETTER FROM CHUCK MCGRAW 5/1/89 26. LETTER KITTY WARNER 3/10/89 27. LETTER GREG HENDRIX 3/8/89 28. LETTER FROM GREG HENDRIX 4/24/89 29. MAP & MEMORANDUM OF CONTRACT 30. MYLAR 31. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/18/89 32. LETTER FROM ORE. HUNTERS ASSOC. 8/17/89 33. LETTER FROM JAMES ATTERHOLT 8/21/89 34. LETTER FROM JOHN BELL 8/28/89 35. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 36. LETTER FROM KELLY SMITH & SANDI SCHMIDT 8/18/89 37. LETTER FROM PAUL RUGLOSKI 8/21/89 Cvenm►�s►on �� �� vb mrrn, loft:S inc,4"n%0uZUs v �►'nm►��cv�cz�5 C��C�V510►1 trtnw�-S 2 101 -" 128G ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 293 Site Number 293, occupying tax lots 500, 600, 700 and 800, in Township 17 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 25, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Prante abstaining, that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 293 is located on Johnson Road in Tumalo just south of its intersection with Tyler Road and comprises approxi- mately 90 acres. The site is owned by R.L. Coats and is zoned SM, SMR and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20, RSR -5 and RSR -M. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding are was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 Testimony was also received from R.L. Coats, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Coalition for the Deschutes, the Parks and Recreation Division of the Oregon Division of Transportation (State Parks), the Oregon Hunters Association and numerous neighbors from adjacent residential properties. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 3 million cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics and Factual Background. The Board finds the following facts to be true. This site is in Tumalo south of Tumalo Park Road and east of Johnson Road. Tumalo Park Road is 1/4 mile south of Johnson and Tyler Roads. Tax lot 500 is bisected by Tumalo Creek and is the most easterly of the sites. Tax lots 600 and 700, located just to the west of tax lot 500 slope down to a small drainage that runs through the properties diagonally. These three tax lots (excepting the easterly portion of tax lot 500) are currently being mined for sand, and have little vegetation on the lots. There are two springs on the eastern edge of these two sites, which have developed two ponds in the lowest areas of the site. Tax lot 800 (about 80 acres) borders Johnson Road and is a fairly open, level lot that is currently planted with alfalfa. Deer are often seen feeding on this site in the early morning and evening. This site is at the north end of a very large area of gravel reserves. The Klippel Acres site (site 294) is just to the south; Coats' large mining operation inside the Bend urban growth boundary is located across Tumalo Creek just to the southeast. To the west are residential acreage sites. Directly south of the subject's east site are a couple of residential acreage properties. To the east is Tumalo Creek. To the north are natural large acreages. The front lot is highly visible from Johnson Road, while the rear sites are screened by a large stand of trees. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 S ° 3 i01 m 1288 Resources 1. State scenic waterway. A segment of the Deschutes River just to the east of this site has been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Such designation includes a 1/4 mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that the scenic waterway corridor touches a portion of tax lot 500 of this site. State scenic waterway designation is based upon a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, archeological and recreational and other values. From the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River study, the outstanding attributes of the river in this segment appear to be its scenic and recreational qualities. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 2. Open space and scenic. Land adjacent to tax lot 500 is occupied by Tumalo State Park. In addition, the site is subject to LM zoning along the Johnson Road corridor to protect the scenic views along Johnson Road. 3. Wildlife habitat. The site has a wildlife combining zone overlay in recognition that this site is within the Tumalo deer winter range. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer winter range. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space, scenic and recreational values are impacted by removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. In addition, noise from processing operations, heavy equipment and trucks can intrude on recreational open space lands, such as park lands. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 10.1 1289 In this case, the impacts on open space, scenic and recreational values would be felt primarily in the adjacent parcel of Tumalo State Park land and along the Johnson Road scenic corridor. Johnson Road is a heavily used road connecting residential properties in the area to the Bend urban area. The scenic impacts in this corridor would occur only if mining were to occur on the westernmost portions of tax lot 800, as the existing trees at the site screens the current opera- tions from view. Testimony of area residents suggested that if mining were allowed on the site, it not be extended to the western portion of tax lot 800. The adjacent Tumalo State park land is unimproved and used primarily by day hikers. Visitors making use of the park would be subjected to the visual disturbances created by mining at the site. State Parks in its testimony has asked that the site be screened from the park. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construc- tion of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. (3) Visual Impacts on the Deschutes River state scenic waterway would appear to be negligible. State Parks did not mention impacts in its testimony. In addition, the scenic waterway corridor touches only a portion of tax lot 500. It is possible that mining operations close to Tumalo Creek could cause water quality pro- blems downstream, however, there is no indication that surface mining at this site would create water quality problems. State scenic waterway status does not preclude mining in scenic waterways, but allows for mining operations in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks approval. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140, 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 12 9 U 4.150 and 4.230 of the Deschutes County zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the SM and SMR zones to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclu- sion of other uses. On those portions of the site available for other development, the impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensitive uses, as defined below and aesthe- tic impacts. These uses would include all uses within the zone except utility uses. This is not viewed as much of a conflict, since the purpose of SM and SMR zoning is to facilitate surface mining. Surrounding zones (EFU-20, RR -10) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, feed lots, personal use landing strips and other mining uses. The Board finds that existing residential development at the nearby subdivisions and other residential properties and park uses on Tumalo State Park property would be adversely affected. The nearby Saddleback and Klippel Acres subdivisions have at least 30 residential sites within the impact area, and many of these resi- dents testified concerning the probable impacts of noise on their quality of life. Similar testimony came from residents to the northwest of the site. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 e j . F'� -. safety of residential neighborhoods. Because of the site's proximity to nearby subdivisions and to Tumalo State Park, truck traffic conflicts would be substan- tial. Neighbors testified about their use of area roads for walking and biking being threatened. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The visual impacts would be greatest if mining were to expand to the west to include most of tax lot 800, which is presently zoned SMR. (5) Impact on Property Values. Many residents testified about the probable downward effect continued mining would have at the site. At least one resident tes- tified that a potential sale fell through due to this proposed surface mining zoning. The Board finds this testimony to be anecdotal in nature and not a suffi- cient basis for concluding that property values or salability would be affected. No testimony was offered referring to any studies showing that market values decline or that sales stop. Such testimony did not address the valuation question or salability question with regard to surface mines sited with proper environ- mental controls. Furthermore, the Board notes that the there are many instances in the County where surface mines are sited in close proximity to homes. The Board finds that in this instance, the surface mine at this site preexisted many of the homes in the area. The Board finds that the testimony on this issue was affected by the instant controversy and uncertainty of the process and that such testimony did not present a true picture of value or salability. The Board stands by the analysis provided through the Assessor's office that over the long term, property values do not decline nor do sales stop. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. Such surrounding mining devel- opment lowers the level of conflict at this site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 Oji 101 - i29 until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to Tumalo State Park and the Johnson Road scenic corridor. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife, scenic, and recrea- tional attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic and recrea- tional qualities of the Deschutes River corridor. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views from the adja- cent Tumalo State Park lands and from Johnson Road would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topo- graphy. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 1,011 - 1293 opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to the Bend-Tumalo market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this that are convenient to urban market areas and processing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of $.22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The site has great signifi- 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 101 ^ 1294 cance due to its large size and close -in location. Unlike many other site, loss of this particular site would defi- nitely be felt in the Bend-Tumalo market area. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend-Tumalo market area and that consequently preserva- tion of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower aggre- gate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. The Board finds that given the size and close -in location of this site, is has great significance. Unlike many other sites, loss of this particular site would at some point have some impact on the aggregate supply and price of aggregate in the local market. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic, wildlife, and recreational values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental conse- quences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources, and scenic and recreational resources are often limited by 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 _'01 1295 locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development and cannot be recreated. Scenic and recreational resources such as Tumalo State Park likewise are limited in number and cannot easily be recreated by manmade substitutes. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the natural resources are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the Deschutes County economy; (b) Considering the quantity, quality, and location of this site close to the Bend urban area market, this is an important aggregate deposit; (c) This site is an existing mining site; (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development; and (e) The adjacent Tumalo State Park and Johnson Road cor- ridor are important open space, scenic, and recreation resources, for both visitors and residents. Such resources have importance for the regional economy. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 0l - 1296 Some neighboring residents expressed concern about their property values. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, as mentioned above, trend analy- sis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Testimony during the ESEE hearings estab- lished that Johnson Road is a narrow road and not the best roadway for handling large amounts of truck traffic. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to recreational sites such as Tumalo State Park. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity would be felt primarily in the nearby residences to the southwest and northwest and by the users of Tumalo State Park to the northeast, as set forth above. The high level of use of Tumalo State Park in the summertime would heighten the land use conflicts at this site. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 / r 4 , u'l ,, 12 9 _( 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, this is one of a handful of sites that would definitely have an impact on the ability to meet the community's aggregate needs due to its size and location close to the Bend-Tumalo market. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 i 0 1 -" 1298 those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic and recreational values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate materials are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The size and quality of this deposit make it among the most important resources on the inventory. (c) The site is located close to urban markets. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) This is an existing mining site. (e) Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. The nearby Saddleback and Klippel Acres subdivisions are well established commun- ities of homes in the area, as are other residential properties in the area. (f) Tumalo State Park is heavily used during the summer months. Recreation sites, such as Tumalo State Park, 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 '01 - 1299 are increasingly important for the Deschutes County economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the exist- ing SM zoning on tax lots 500, 600 and 700 will be retained, and the easterly half of tax lot 800 will be rezoned from SMR to SM, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening, with particular attention paid to screening to benefit the visual impacts on Tumalo State Park; (c) Processing shall be allowed only on the westerly portion of tax lot 500 and on tax lot 600; (d) The conditions set forth by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in their letter of August 10, 1989, concerning deer winter range areas; (e) Extraction at the site shall be limited to 5 acres at a time, with on-going incremental reclamation (subject to review and approval by DOGAMI); (f) Mining operations, siting of equipment, and trucking of product shall be conducted in such a manner that applicable DEQ standards are met; The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact, the restrictions on winter processing, 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 101 ^ 1300 the 5 -acre limit on excavation, and the reclamation plan conditions. The Board finds that the screening and buffer- ing provisions of the Deschutes County zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014, meet the ESEE screening and buffering requirements. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting mineral and aggregate resources, since the site will be allowed to be mined. 25. In addition, the Board finds that scenic resources along Johnson Road and deer winter range values are protected by not zoning the westerly half of tax lot 800. This zoning shall revert to EFU-20, the same as for the zoning on tax lot 900 to the north which the Board denied for SM zoning in its decision on site 292. Mineral Resource 26. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 27. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" 15 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 3• � I 0l -, 1301 uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 28. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 29. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise stan- dards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. 16 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #293 ( :1302 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. MAP 4. MAP 5. MAP 6. MAP 7. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 5/5/88 8. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/5/85 9. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/2/84 10. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/2/84 11. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/16/84 12. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 6/21/83 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 5/7/82 14. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 3/4/82 15. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/26/81 16. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/3/80 17. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/11/77 18. NOTIFICATION MAPS 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS AND STAFF REPORT 20. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 21. MYLAR 22. LETTER FROM DAN KEARNS 5/26/89 1 101 - 1303 23. LETTER FROM LINDA BROOKS 5/16/89 24. RECORD OF CONVERSATION 5/9/89 25. LETTER FROM ROSSI 2/12/80 26. LETTER FROM ORE HUNTERS ASSOC. 8/17/89 27. LETTER FROM JAMES ATTERHOLT 8/21/89 28. LETTER FROM JOHN BELL 8/28/89 29. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/18/89 30. LETTER FROM KELLY SMITH & SANDI SCHMIDT 8/18/89 31. LETTER FROM PAUL RUGLOSKI 8/21/89 TARL.E OF CONTENTS 1 y SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 'Cover information sheet 2 - Cover information sheet 3 - Map 4 - Map 5 -Map 6 - Map 7 - Grant of Limited Exemption issuea 5/5/88 8 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/5/85 9 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/2/84 10 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/2/84 11 - Report of On-site Inspection dated 2/16/84 12 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 6/21/83 13 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 5/7/82 14 - Report of On-site Inspection dated 3/4/82 15 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/26/81 16 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/3/80 1:304 i i 0� 17 - Grant( of Limited Exemption issued 4/11/77 20 - 10 -run-t 01 Co M ll�carrrnQ r� cic, ic�t 0? 6ry�a_ SUIT, 12C sem. Z It Hcc /, _ 0'1 - 1305 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY In the Matter of the Determination of the Environmental, Social, Energy, and Economic Consequences of the Use of Inventory Site No. 294, the "Klippel Site" For Surface Mining FINDINGS Findings, Decision, And Program To Implement Goal 5 Klippel Site, hereinafter referred to as Site No. 294, also described as Tax ID No. 171113817, came before the Board of Commissioners ("Board") for hearing on July 19, 1989. On July 19, 1989, a preliminary decision was made on this site. By adoption of these Findings, Decision and Program to Implement Goal 5, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the Site No. 294, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations as Surface Mining ("SM"). For the reasons given below, the Board determines that Site No. 294 should be so classified. 1. Preliminary Findings 1 Site No. 294 was placed on the Deschutes County's Goal 5 Inventory for Mineral and Aggregate Resources by Ordinance No. 88-039 and as amended by Ordinance No. 90-025. Public hearings on the inventory were conducted by the Deschutes County Hearings Officer during June 1988. In September, 1988, the Hearings Officer made a recommendation to the Board on the County's inventory. The Board conducted hearings on the inventory on October 11, 1988 and on December 14, 1988 when the inventory was adopted. 2 Thereafter, pursuant to OAR 660-16-005 and 660-16-010, the County conducted further hearings to identify conflicts with the inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites, to determine the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy ("ESEE") consequences and to develop a program to achieve Goal 5. 3 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-000 et seg, these Findings, Decision and Program Implementing Goal 5 outline the County's reasons, and explain the County's program implementing Goal 5 and are made a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 1 i0 ,, 13OG 2. Applicable Criteria 1 The criteria applicable to the decision are Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rule, OAR 660-16-010 et seg. To the extent that other Statewide Planning Goals are applicable, appropriate findings have been made in Ordinance No. 90-029, which adopts the Findings, Decisions and Programs Implementing Goal 5 for each of the inventoried aggregate resource sites. By this reference said findings are incorporated herein. 2 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-005 and 660-16-010, once an aggregate and mineral resource site has been placed on the County's Goal 5 inventory, the County must identify conflicting uses which could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource. Both the impacts of the conflicting uses on the resource site and the resource's impacts on the conflicting uses must be considered in the determination of the ESEE consequences. The ESEE analysis enables the County to explain why decisions are made for specific sites. The Goal 5 rule then requires the County to develop a program to achieve the goal by resolving the conflicts in one of three ways: by protecting the resource site, by allowing conflicting uses fully, or by limiting conflicting uses. 3 By Ordinance No. 90-014, the County amended the Deschutes County surface mining ordinance, Ordinance No. PL -15. Ordinance No. 90-014, incorporated herein by reference. This ordinance authorizes the development and use of inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites in accordance with appropriate standards. It also adopts the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone ("SMIA") which has application to all properties located within one-half mile of the boundary of an inventoried surface mining resource site (the "impact area"). The SMIA zone regulates uses within the impact area to reduce or resolve conflicts with inventoried surface mining sites. 4 Based on the ESEE analysis of Site No. 294, as detailed below, a program to achieve Goal 5 has been developed to balance the ESEE consequences so as to allow the conflicting uses, but in a limited way in order to protect the aggregate resource site to the desired extent. A 660-16-010(3) decision has been made. Ordinance No. 90-014 implements this decision by designating the allowed uses or activities permitted outright or conditionally, and the specific standards and limitations applicable to such uses or activities on Site No. 294 and in the impact area. 3. Exhibits 1 Prior to the hearing on Site No. 294, a staff report was prepared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflicting resources and uses. The staff report identified conflicting resources and uses, their impacts, and evaluated the ESEE consequences of protecting the aggregate resource or in the alternative of protecting the conflicting resources or uses. I () 1 -^ 1307 2 At the hearings on Site No. 294, testimony was received from the owner/operator as well as from other interested members of the public. Expert testimony was received on the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource, as well as on the ESEE consequences associated with the protection of the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. 3 The owner/operator submitted a surface mining plan detailing the operation, extraction and reclamation of the aggregate resource at Site No. 294. 4. Inventory 1 By Ordinance No. 90-025, Site No. 294 was placed on the County's Goal 5 Inventory for aggregate and mineral resources. By this reference, the Board incorporates the record, the Hearings Officer's report and the findings related to the inventory determination in Ordinance No. 90-025 of the County's Goal 5 aggregate resources. (Ordinance No. 90-025 is also incorporated by this reference). 2 Expert site-specific technical information was submitted for the inventory at Site No. 294 regarding the location of the aggregate resource, its quantity and its quality. 3 Based on that site-specific expert technical information on location, quantity and quality as detailed in this Section 4 and the findings for the overall inventory adopted in Ordinance No. 90- 025, the Board accepts the Hearings Officer's determination that Site No. 294 is a very significant site in the County's resource inventory. 4 The Board finds that the location component of the Goal 5 inventory decision includes a determination of the physical location of the resource on site, i.e., the area and dimensions of the resource location at the site and the location of the resource vis-a-vis its market destination. The latter is principally included in the determination of the site's significance. 5 The Board finds that Site No. 294 is located 5.8 miles from the City of Bend and 4.7 miles from Tumalo. It consists of approximately 162.4 acres. The site has access to Johnson Road, a county rural arterial. The property is generally flat upland pasture with aggregate material existing under a soil layer. 6 Site No. 294's geographic location places it in close proximity to the County's major aggregate market area, i.e. the Bend urban area. The Board finds that the cost of transporting the aggregate resource is an important component in its overall cost. The Board finds that the cost of transporting aggregate is approximately .25 per ton mile and that a haulage distance of 10-15 miles from the market area is the maximum area for which these 3, 13 0 resources can be commercially usable. Based on the cost of transportation, the Board finds that it is appropriate to consider market location factors in determining relative significance given that, unlike other Goal 5 resources, the significance of aggregate resource is measured largely by its commercial value. Market location factors include proximity to urban areas and to transportation corridors. The close proximity of Site No. 294 to the resource's major market area, and its adequate access to a transportation corridor, is a important positive factor in the determination of the site's significance. 7 With respect to the location of the resource on site, the Board accepts the expert testimony of Century West Engineering Corporation ("Century West") which documented an on-site technical investigation of the location of the resource on site as well as the resource's quantity and quality. Century West's expert analysis included test pit excavations, material identification and assessment, and quantity calculations. The Board accepts and believes the Century West reports of January 25, 1988 and February 2, 1988 which document the location and quantity of the resource at Site No. 294. The location of the resource is substantiated by numerous test pits which were excavated on the site to explore the subsurface conditions. Twenty separate test pits were excavated over the surface mining site. The location of the test pits and excavation depths are documented in the Century West reports. The subsurface investigation was completed in two separate steps. The first investigation (January 25, 1988 report) explored the subsurface conditions in the northern and northeastern part of the site to be mined, consisting of 18 acres (Area 1). Thirteen separate test pits were excavated to a depth of 8.5 feet to 16.5 feet below the ground surface. The Board finds that Century West's analysis was a comprehensive review of the subsurface conditions found in Area 1. The Board finds that beneath an overburden of silty sand averaging 2.2 feet, a gravel strata exists below the surface which extends to depths of 7 feet to 11.5 feet with the average thickness of the gravel strata being 7.7 feet. Beneath the gravel strata, there exists a cemented silty sandy gravel or gravelly silty sand. 8 The Board accepts Century West's determination that the gravel strata is a good source of aggregate resource including gravel, cobbles and sand. The Board further accepts Century West's estimate of the quantity of the aggregate in its January 25, 1988 report which was calculated on the basis of the average thickness of aggregate at 7.7 feet and an average overburden thickness of 2.2 feet, resulting in an aggregate resource estimate of 223,600 cubic yards of aggregate resource including 157,000 cubic yards of gravel and 66,600 cubic yards of sand. The Board agrees with the Hearings Officer's finding that Century West's quantity estimates are conservative because the entire thickness depth of the subsurface aggregate strata in Area 1 could not be reached in all the test pits due to the limited reach of the back hoe, and that it is 4 `s 0l - 1303 likely that more aggregate is available than estimated by Century West. 9 In its February 2, 1988 report Century West documented a subsurface evaluation of an area consisting of 47 acres in the south and central part of the site (Area 2). The Century West report for Area 2 is accepted by the Board. This investigation included the excavation of seven test pits to depths ranging from 5.5 feet to 13.0 feet below the ground surface. The Boards finds that beneath an overburden of silty sand averaging 2.5 feet in thickness, a gravel strata is the primary unit throughout the test pit depth. The gravel strata begins at a depth of 1.5 feet to 3.5 feet below the surface and extends to depths of 5 feet to 12.5 feet. The Board finds that the average thickness of the gravel strata is 7.3 feet. The Board accepts Century West's conclusion that the subsurface gravel strata is a good locational source for aggregate resource. The Board further accepts Century West's estimate of the quantity of the aggregate in Area 2 which was calculated on the basis of the average thickness of gravel of 7.3 feet and an average overburden thickness of 2.5 feet, resulting in an aggregate resource estimate of 554,000 cubic yards of aggregate material including 443,000 cubic yards of gravel and 111,000 cubic yards of sand. The Board accepts the Hearings Officer's finding that the total aggregate quantity in Area 2 may exceed Century West's estimate because the total thickness of the gravel strata was not determined in every test hole due to the limited reach of the backhoe. On the basis of the documentation of Century West's subsurface evaluation, the Board accepts Century West's report as a comprehensive review of the subsurface conditions and accepts its expert estimate that Area 2 contains 554,000 cubic yards of aggregate. 10 The Board recognizes that the County's consulting geologist Robert S. Deacon, retained by the County to review specific aggregate sites, concluded that Site No. 294 contained a greater volume of aggregate resource than that estimated by Century West. On the basis of his review of the expert reports and a site visit, consulting geologist Deacon estimates a total aggregate resource quantity of 922,000 cubic yards at Site No. 294. Mr. Deacon's calculation of a higher estimate of total aggregate resource is based on planimeter survey results of photograph of the surface area using the average thickness of the aggregate strata from the Century West reports. 11 The Board finds that Century West's estimate of 777,600 cubic yards is based on site-specific evaluation of test pits conducted in the areas to be mined. While the planimeter survey results from Mr. Deacon suggest a higher estimate of aggregate resource, the Board accepts the results of the on-site technical evaluation completed by Century West which resulted in a quantity estimate of 777,600 cubic yards. By this reference the Board incorporates the Hearings Officer's report and findings herein. 5 of 1310 12 The Board also recognizes that a report from Mr. Edward Groh addressed the quantity of the aggregate resource on Site No. 294 and concluded that the site contained 4,159,000 cubic yards of the resource. This report, undated, is not supported or substantiated with field notes of test pit logs and does not contain any data analysis supporting. the volume estimate. The Board accepts the Hearings Officer's finding that the Groh report is not sufficiently substantiated to serve as a reasonable estimate of the aggregate resource. 13 The Board also recognizes that a report was submitted by H.G. Schlicker & Associates (Schlicker) which presents an evaluation of the aggregate resource at Site No. 294 based on a review of some of the technical reports evaluating the aggregate resource on site. The Schlicker report questions the reliability and accuracy of the Groh report as the basis for determining the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource. The Schlicker report notes that the Groh report does not contain laboratory data or test pit logs to support the aggregate resource estimate. The Schlicker report does not review the Century West reports or the report of the county's consulting engineer. Because the Board is not accepting the Groh report as substantiated expert testimony on the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource inventory, and because the Schlicker report does not include an on-site technical subsurface evaluation on the location, quality or quantity of the site's aggregate resource, or review the documentation from Century West provided for in their reports, the Board does not believe that the Schlicker report provides substantiated technical evidence on the resource inventory. 14 With respect to the quality of the aggregate at Site No. 294, the Board accepts the uncontroverted expert report of Century West which documented the results of durability and soundness tests on the resource at Site No. 294 (June 3, 1988 report). The test results of the sample aggregate from the test pit samples from the site document that the aggregate quality at Site No. 294 was tested by the commercial testing methods for abrasion, degradation and soundness. The Board accepted these testing standards for aggregate material as established by the Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Division (ODOT) in Ordinance No. 90-025 (finding No. 248, Ordinance No. 90-025 incorporated herein by reference). The Board accepts the conclusion of Century West in their report of June 3, 1988 that the aggregate samples from Site No. 294 satisfy the requirements for quality adopted in Ordinance No. 90-025. 15 In determining the quality of the resource at Site No. 294 relative to other aggregate resource sites in the county, the Board incorporates its finding regarding the standards of relative aggregate quality as set forth in Ordinance No. 90-025, Findings No. 24 and 27. Those findings establish the categories of the aggregate resource quality under ODOT standards and defines the quality categories established by the County in determining 6 relative quality significance of aggregate resource sites in the inventory. Based on the testing of the aggregate resource at Site No. 294, as referenced above in finding 4.15, the Board finds that the aggregate resource at Site No. 294 is "excellent," meaning "of superior grade." The Board finds that 34% of the county's available inventory of aggregate is of excellent quality and finds that the superior grade quality of the aggregate at Site No. 294 is significant relative to other aggregate resources in the County. (Ordinance 90-025, incorporated herein by this reference.) 16 In determining the significance of the quantity of the resource at Site No. 294 relative to other aggregate resource sites in the County, the Board finds that the County's annual aggregate demand is 2 million cubic yards. (Ordinance No. 90-028, incorporated herein by this reference.) The county's inventory process has resulted in an available inventory of approximately 45 million cubic yards of aggregate which is adequate for the 20 year planning period. Approximately 6.2 million cubic yards of that inventory is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend urban area, the major market for aggregate product. Of that, only approximately 1.3 million cubic yards, including Site No. 294, is of excellent quality. (See, Exhibits G and H of Ordinance No. 90-025.) While the Board recognizes that additional aggregate is located inside the cities' urban growth boundaries, that resource was not a part of the county's inventory process. .The Board finds that Site No. 294 is a significant quantity of superior grade aggregate and that its relative significance for quantity is enhanced by its close proximity to the major commercial market. 17 Based on the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource at Site No. 294, the Board finds that Site No. 294 is the 13th most significant site in the county's overall aggregate inventory. (Exhibit H, Ordinance No. 90-025). 5. Site Conditions 1 Site No. 294 is owned by CLR, Inc., an affiliate of Bend Aggregate & Paving Co. The property consists of approximately 162.4 aces. It is zoned Surface Mining Reserve (SMR) and has been so zoned for several years. The State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries has issued a surface mining permit for Site No. 294. The site is 5.8 miles from Bend and 4.7 miles from Tumalo, lying near Johnson Road and the partially developed Klippel Ranch and Saddleback subdivisions. The site is 4.7 miles from the Bend Aggregate Paving Co. crushing operation located on U.S. Highway 20 in Tumalo. 2 Site No. 294 is a relatively flat drainage plateau with sands and gravel under a soil layer. It is predominantly open pasture with areas of pine, juniper and sage brush. It is undeveloped, except for ranch buildings on the northern end of the property, a powerline on the eastern edge of the property, and the Tumalo irrigation ditch on the westerly boundary. The site is 7 t l - 13:12 lower in elevation than all the surrounding terrain and there are no special views from the site. 6. Vicinity Conditions 1 The general vicinity of the property is bounded by Johnson Road on the west and Tumalo Creek canyon on the east. Johnson Road, a county arterial, is not visible from Site No. 294 because of a buffer of trees east of Johnson Road and west of the site. Access to and from Johnson Road is presently available along Buck Drive. A new paved access road will be built to access the mining site so that the existing roadway access used by area residents will not be used by traffic associated with the mining activity. A road access permit from the Deschutes County Department of Public Works has been issued for the new access to Site No. 294. 2 Within the general vicinity of Site No. 294 there are areas of developed or partially developed residential subdivisions. An existing surface mine is located to the east of Site No. 294, across Tumalo Creek. The other mine has intermittent mining and processing of aggregate material. 7. Mining and Reclamation Plan 1 The Board finds that a proposed surface mining operational and reclamation plan has been submitted by the owner/operator for Site No. 294. The Board accepts the site's proposed mining operational plan, including excavation, transport to the permanent crusher area on-site, crushing, screening and reclamation, along with testimony received in the record, as the basis for analyzing the impacts and ESEE consequences. This section of the findings detail the proposed operational plan. 2 The areas to be mined are Area 1 in the northeast portion of the site and Area 2 in the southerly portion of the site. The remaining acreage will be left in its natural condition. The operational plan provides for the mining of approximately 5 acres of the site each year, yielding approximately 60,000 cubic yards of aggregate on an annual basis. At any one time only three percent of the total site will be mined. A crusher is proposed to be located at a permanent location on the site at the northwest corner of the property. The crusher area is proposed to be screened by earthen berms to mitigate noise impacts. The reclamation process will occur annually in 5 -acre increments. 3 The method of excavation begins with the removal of the 2-3 feet of topsoil with a bulldozer. The bulldozer used in the excavation will be muffled in order to minimize the noise impact. The topsoil will be pushed into 10-15 foot berms around each 5 -acre area being excavated. The berms will provide a site and noise - obscuring buffer. Water spraying will be provided to curtail any 8 x l y fugitive dust resulting processes. U -1 from the excavation and -y 1313 transport 4 After the topsoil is removed, the aggregate material will be loaded by a front-end loader on trucks for transport to the crusher area. The permanent on-site crusher area is proposed to be approximately 4-5 acres in size. The site for the crusher is proposed to be approximately 20 feet lower than the existing ground level to the east and south and approximately 60 feet lower than the existing ground level to the west and north. A 50 -foot wide buffer strip of trees will remain along both sides of Klippel Road between the crusher site and the southern mining area. The crusher is proposed to be a portable unit consisting of a jaw, crusher, one cone crusher, two roll crushers, two to three screen decks and conveyors. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has issued an Air Contaminant Discharge Permit for the use of the crusher. 5 In Area 1 the excavation and removal of the aggregate to the proposed crusher site will proceed from the boundary of the proposed crusher area and continue in an easterly direction within the boundaries of Area 1. The depth of the excavation will be approximately 7 to 10 feet. The excavation, removal, and reclamation of Area 2 will proceed in the same manner, from north to south. 6 A paved access road is proposed to be constructed from Johnson Road to the proposed crusher area. This will be the route used by employees and trucks removing material from the site. The existing road that provides access to residences to the east and south of the site will not be used by traffic associated with the surface mining activity. 7 Approximately 60,000 cubic yards will be removed from the site each year. material will be removed during the spring, (April through October). Assuming 50,000 during this time frame of 140 working days, yards per day or 4.6 trips per hour in projected traffic inpact. (15 cubic yards is crushed at the site, 60 to 80 percent c toward Bend via Johnson Road. of aggregate products The majority of this summer, and fall months cubic yards is removed an average of 357 cubic a 10 -hour day is the Der trip). If material f the material will go 8 Reclamation will occur annually as each 5 -acre area is depleted. When the aggregate material is removed, the topsoil which has been stored in berms on the edge of the excavated area will be restored over the excavated area and fine graded with a motor grader. The area will then be seeded with grasses to restore the pasture environment and to produce enhanced feeding materials for wildlife. This reclamation work will proceed concurrently with mining. Following reclamation, the mined area will be a pasture slightly lower than the unmined areas at its perimeter, with boundary slopes not exceeding 3:1. 9 �A-:L O [.► l - 1314 8. Conflicts Analysis 1 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-005, the Board has identified conflicts with the inventoried aggregate resource at Site No. 294. The conflicting uses, i.e., those uses which, if allowed, could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource site, have been primarily identified by examining both the existing uses, and the uses allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the County for the site and the impact area. In addition, conflicting resource uses have been identified by a review of the other inventoried Goal 5 resources in the County's Comprehensive Plan for the site and the impact area. 2 The Board finds that the conflicting uses consist of 1) resource conflicts, i.e., other Goal 5 inventoried resources on the site and the impact area (the "resource conflicts"), and 2) uses which exist or are allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the County for the site and the impact area, (the "land use conflicts"). Resource Conflicts 3 With respect to the resource conflicts, the Board finds that a conflict exists between the inventoried aggregate resource and the Goal 5 inventory of the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, a designated wildlife habitat and area. The Board finds that Site No. 294 is within the designated Tumalo Winter Deer Range and that a conflict exists between the two Goal 5 resources. 4 The Board finds that Tumalo Creek is located on the eastern boundary of Site No. 294. It is characterized as a narrow, rocky stream in a deep canyon. Tumalo Creek is designated a waterway with a fish and wildlife habitat and riparian area in the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study (River Study). The Board finds that the designated resources of Tumalo Creek may be a resource conflict with the inventoried aggregate resource at Site No. 294. 5 The Board finds that one other Goal 5 resource inventoried by the County's Comprehensive Plan may conflict with the inventoried aggregate resource at Site No. 294. The County's Comprehensive Plan inventories "open space" and "areas of special concern" in Table 1, page 108 of its Plan. Site No. 294 is not inventoried as either "open space" or as an "area of special concern"; however, the Plan recognizes the general desirability of maintaining areas in their natural state, including areas designated for future aggregate extraction. The Plan provides that open space areas include a broad range of areas left in their natural state, and, as noted in the County's Comprehensive Plan at page 103, can include mineral and aggregate sites which are left in their natural state prior to productive mining. The Plan recognizes that, during mining operations, portions of the mining 10 i_ 4 L "O'l - 1 315 site may not normally be available as open space, but that such sites will be valuable as open space following mining reclamation. Maintaining the countryside in its natural state, including agricultural lands, pasture, and forested areas is recognized in the County's Plan as an important component of open -space planning. Thus, while Site No. 294 is not specifically inventoried as "needed" or "desirable" open space, as part of the county's inventory of "open space and areas of special concern," the Board accepts the staff report identifying "open space" as a resource conflict. 6 The Board finds that no other inventoried Goal 5 resource conflicts with the inventoried aggregate resource. Site No. 294 is not an inventoried "outstanding scenic view and site." The County Comprehensive Plan at page 108 inventories the "areas of special concern" wherein the County inventories its areas of special importance, outstanding, or unique scenic resources. The Board finds that the Goal 5 inventory of "outstanding scenic views and sites" as inventoried in the County's Comprehensive Plan does not include the area encompassing Site No. 294. As a result, the Goal 5 resource of "outstanding scenic views and sites" is not a conflicting resource use to the inventoried aggregate resource. 7 The Board accepts the Bancroft Appraisal Report, attached to the staff report, which states that "no special views" exist on the site, "other than the surrounding properties." The Board does not accept the staff report which lists "outstanding scenic views and sites" as an identified resource conflict for Site No. 294, because Site No. 294 is not so inventoried by the County's Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Conflicts 8 The Board finds that the potential for conflicting land uses exist with the inventoried aggregate resource. The potential conflicting land uses have been identified primarily by examining the uses allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the county on the site and in the impact area and by examining existing land uses. The Board finds that the zoning districts of Surface Mining ("SM"), Surface Mining Reserve ("SMR"), Rural Residential - 10 ("RR -10") and Exclusive Farm Use -20 ("EFU-20") are the broad zoning districts established by the County within the impact area of Site No. 294. These districts allow uses which conflict with the inventoried aggregate resource. The Board incorporates by reference the uses allowed outright and conditionally in those zoning districts as potential conflicting land uses with the inventoried resource site. (Ordinance No. PL -15, Sections 4.100, 4.110, 4.120 and 4.040.) The Board accepts the staff report reference to the adjacent zoning districts found on page 1 of the staff report, but does not accept the staff report's Appendix A as the identification of the relevant broad zoning districts, because Appendix A does not include the correct zoning districts as referenced on page 1 of the staff report. 11 _A -M 9 The Board accepts the staff report's identification of the existing conflicting land uses as the rural residences located in the Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) zone in the impact area. Within the impact area of Site No. 294 between Johnson Road and Tumalo Creek, there are approximately 108 vacant and improved residential parcels. As noted in the staff report, approximately 27 parcels are within 600 feet of the site, the remainder are located between 600 feet and 1/2 mile from the site. 9. Impact Analysis 1 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-005, once conflicting uses are identified that could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource site, the ESEE consequences of the conflicting uses must be determined. Both the impacts on the resource site and the conflicting uses must be considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. 2 Sections 9 through 13 analyze the ESEE consequences on the resource conflicts and on the land use conflicts from protecting the inventoried aggregate resource, and the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource from protecting the resource conflicts and land use conflicts. 3 The Board accepts the discussion in the staff report identifying the potential impacts of the inventoried aggregate resource on the resource conflicts and the land use conflicts. The impacts on the resource conflicts and land use conflicts are identified as dust, noise and human presence, transportation, water quality degradation, vegetation removal, degradation of soils and topographical changes. The Board incorporates herein its finding No. 30 from Ordinance No. 90-025. 10. ESEE Analysis - Resource Conflicts - Protecting the Aggregate Resource over the Resource Conflicts 1 This section of the findings analyzes the ESEE consequences on the resource conflicts from protecting the aggregate resource. Section 11 analyzes the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource from protecting the resource conflicts. 2 Environmental Consequences. With respect to the resource conflict of open space, the Board finds that the impacts of dust, noise and the changes in the landscape associated with the extraction of the aggregate resource will negatively affect the visual appearance of the open space resource because the area will not be left in its natural state; however, the Board finds that these impacts can be substantially mitigated so that the impact on the open space resource is not significant. The site is not visible from Johnson Road which has been identified as a Landscape Management Corridor. A 50 -feet wide buffer of pine and juniper trees on the east side of Johnson Road 12 Lol - 1317 screens the site from the road so that any change in the topography and vegetation associated with the surface mining activity will not be visible to those travelling on Johnson Road. Additionally, although the mining activity and its associated impacts will affect the visual nature of the open fields currently in existence, the impacts will be short-term. Surface mining is a transitional use, and the area will be reclaimed for open space resource use. By limiting the active mining site to 5 acres at any one time the visual effects of the surface mining activity will be reduced. Phasing will also minimize the amount of vegetation removal and the landscape changes which impact the open space resource. Further, ongoing concurrent reclamation, irrigation and planting will allow the depleted portions of the site to return to their productive capacity as open space in an accelerated fashion. Phasing of the mining operation will also minimize the impacts of dust and noise which impact the open space resource. By mining only 5 acres at a time, with concurrent reclamation, the disturbed areas of the site will be minimized which will reduce fugitive dust emissions. The Board finds that the fugitive dust emissions which could impact the visual appeal of the open space resource will also be minimized by the incorporation of a mining operational plan as proposed for the site. The plan provides for the construction of a new paved access road onto Johnson Road to reduce the dust generated by trucks entering Johnson Road. The operational plan also incorporates the use of watering during each stage of the mining operating - excavation, stockpiling, transportation on-site to the proposed crusher area, and at the crusher to minimize the generation of dust during operations. A DEQ Air Contaminant Discharge Permit has been obtained for the operation of the proposed crusher. The Board finds that the impact of noise on the open space resource can be minimized to some extent by the implementation of mitigation measures. The Board has considered the report from Van Gulik/Oliver, Inc. and Daly S. Standlee and Associates (Standlee) which conclude that with the implementation of mitigation measures, the noise from the surface mining operation can meet DEQ standards. However, to further protect the open space resource, the Board finds that on-site crushing, which generates the highest levels of noise of the various components of the operation, should not be permitted in order to protect the open space resource particularly in view of the fact that the aggregate material extracted at the site can be transported a relatively short distance to the Bend Aggregate crushing site in Tumalo. 10.2.1 With respect to the wildlife resource, the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, the Board finds that both positive and negative environmental consequences will result from the protection of the aggregate resource. The implementation of a wildlife management plan providing for enhanced wildlife forage and cover can mitigate against the impacts on the wildlife resource. Absent mitigation, impacts of dust, noise and human presence, landscape changes 13 io<t 1318 including vegetation removal and traffic which are associated with the surface mining activity negatively impact the wildlife resource. The increased traffic associated with the mining activity may increase the mortality rate of wildlife on the roadways. The impacts of noise and human presence, dust and changes to the topography including vegetation removal, may result in the displacement of wildlife from the area, resulting in overcrowding and increased competition for resources on adjacent areas. Food sources may be disrupted and cover may be destroyed. By implementation of wildlife management measures, the impacts of dust, noise and human presence and vegetation removal can be minimized so that the negative environmental consequences to the wildlife resource are not significant. The intermittent use of the site, on a seasonal basis, including the prohibition of on-site crushing will allow the wildlife resource to continue its use of the area without impact. The Board accepts the report of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) which proposed specific mitigation measures for the proposed surface mining activity at Site No. 294, including winter closure. The Board also has considered the report of Mr. Glenn R. Adams of Northwest Agri - Tech, Inc. (Adams) which addressed the impacts of noise and human presence on the conflicting resource use of wildlife habitat. The Board finds that the Adams report concluded that the surface mining activity would not have a significant undesirable effect on the Tumalo Winter Deer Range resource because Site No. 294 is located on the extreme eastern edge of the habitat area and comprises less than one-tenth of one percent of the Range and, because surface mining will occur on only one 5 acre portion of the site at any one time, the surface mining activity will affect only 75 acres of wildlife forage and cover (less than 0.067% of the Range) by the presence of equipment, noise and human activity. The Board finds that the forage and cover of the wildlife habitat will be enhanced during the mining operation so that the site can provide forage for greater numbers of wildlife both during and subsequent to the surface mining activity than is presently available to the wildlife habitat. The Board finds that the loss of forage from the area of active surface mining can be mitigated by the enhancement of forage on other portions of the site. The enhanced forage will be achieved by irrigation, cover plantings and spring wheat plantings as specified in the wildlife management plan. By employing these mitigation measures, the Board finds that the site can provide forage for 38 more wildlife during mining and for 167 more wildlife following site reclamation. 10.2.2 With respect to the resource conflict of Tumalo Creek, a designated waterway with fish and wildlife habitat and riparian area in the County's Plan, the Board finds that protecting the aggregate resource will not result in environmental consequences to that resource. The Tumalo Creek canyon is a steep j-01 -y 1319 canyon along the eastern boundary of the property extending over 100 feet in depth to the creek. No mining is proposed along the Tumalo Creek canyon. On the basis of a review of the mining proposal, ODFW has concluded that no adverse consequences will occur to the Tumalo Creek drainway or its fish resources. The Board accepts the report from ODFW that no adverse impacts to the fish, fish habitat or water quality in Tumalo Creek will result from the proposed mining at Site No. 294. The Board further accepts the report of CH2M Hill which evaluated the groundwater resources on the site and any potential off-site impacts. The Board finds that the shallow perched water area found on the site through excavation of test pits results from either water losses from Tumalo Irrigation's ditch or on-site irrigation. This perched water may feed on-site springs and springs to the east of the site. Recharge to the perched water zone decreased when irrigation was stopped. Any natural recharge of the perched water zone was inadequate to maintain consistent spring flow. The Board accepts the conclusion of CH2M Hill that water discharging from the on-site spring, even if capable of flowing into Tumalo Creek under certain conditions, cannot be considered a significant reliable source of water for Tumalo Creek if irrigation at the site is discontinued. The Board finds that irrigation has been discontinued at the site and that the on-site spring has stopped flowing. The Board finds that because the groundwater and on-site spring are not a significant source of water for Tumalo Creek, protecting the aggregate resource will not result in significant impacts to the creek's water quality or beneficial uses. 3 Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy consequences of protecting the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts would be both positive and negative. Energy consumption will be necessary to run the surface mining equipment on site. The Board finds that this expenditure of fuel will be necessary at any extraction operation and should not be considered a negative energy consequence. Fuel will also be needed to transport the aggregate product to the crusher and to its market destination. Given the location of Site No. 294 in close proximity to the major market area for aggregate, the expenditure of fuel necessary to transport the aggregate to its end use will not be significant relative to sites which are located a greater distance from the major market area. The Board finds that Site No. 294 is 5.8 miles from the major aggregate market demand, the Bend urban area. Of the County's available inventory of aggregate resources, only 5.5 million cubic yards are located within 10-15 miles of the major demand area. The Board finds that the energy consequence of transporting aggregate from resource sites in close proximity to its usage destination is a positive energy consequence relative to the fuel expenditures necessary to transport the resource from sites a greater distance from market. The Board finds that the utilization of aggregate resources near the major market area results in a positive energy consequence when compared to the necessary use of fuel to transport 15 101 - 13ZU aggregate resources from inventoried sites further away from its market area. Failure to protect aggregate resources in close proximity to the market area would result in significant negative energy consequences since additional energy consumption would be necessary to transport the aggregate resources located greater distances than Site No. 294 from the consumer market areas. The protection of the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts may result in negative energy consequence if the public is required to travel greater distances to view the wildlife habitat or open space resource. Because this site is not visible from Johnson Road, is a temporary use, and comprises only 1/10 of 1% of the winter deer range, the Board finds this energy consequence to be insignificant. 4 Social Consequences. Protecting the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts will have a short-term negative social consequence on the open space and wildlife resource. Dust, noise and human presence and changes in topography/landscape associated with the extraction of the aggregate resource will temporarily impair the use of the site as open space. The loss of visual appeal resulting from the changes in the site's natural state will be a negative social consequence. However, because the site is not visible from the transportation corridor, the significance of the visual impact is diminished. In addition, because the referenced impacts will also affect the wildlife resource, they may result in the negative social consequence of disrupting wildlife viewing opportunities. The Board finds that the implementation of wildlife management plan as referenced in Section 10 will mitigate for the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from protecting the resource. The Board finds that the wildlife habitat can be enhanced both during mining and after reclamation to increase the forage for wildlife, thereby offering the potential to maintain and enhance the wildlife viewing in the area. The Board further finds that the mining operational plans for phasing the mining operation, concurrent reclamation and the implementation of noise and dust mitigation measures as discussed in Section 10 will limit the impact on the visual appeal of the open space resource so that this impact is not significant. 5 Economic Consequences. The Board finds that positive economic consequences result from the -protection of the aggregate resource. Preserving the aggregate resource adds to the overall county supply which serves to maintain the cost of the resource within the County. In Ordinances No. 90-028 and 90-025, incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that the inventory of identified aggregate sites for sand and gravel is needed to meet the anticipated demand for the County's future. Failure to protect an adequate supply of the aggregate resource would result in the negative economic consequence of a higher cost for the resource and higher cost for its use in the development of the County. 16 The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource will result in accelerated deterioration of the roadways which bear the traffic associated with the surface mining activity. The cost of maintaining these roads is a negative economic consequence of preserving the aggregate resource. Because the aggregate resource is a necessary commodity for the development of the area, and transportation of the resource necessarily affects the transportation routes, preserving the aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area will result in net positive economic consequences by minimizing the extent of roadways that are impacted. Johnson Road, a County Rural Arterial, is a paved road with a width of 21-25 feet of hard surface pavement. It will serve as part of the transportation route for the aggregate mined at Site No. 294 to the Bend Aggregate crushing operation in Tumalo. While Johnson Road does not meet the full requirements of a modernized County Arterial, in structure or width, in the spring of 1988, Johnson Road received maintenance from the County Department of Public Works including patching, crack and chip sealing and shoulder widening to bring the road up to routine maintenance standards. The Board recognizes that the cost associated with maintenance of the transportation infrastructure can be significant. By Ordinance No. 90-014, the County has required that improvements or fees in lieu of improvements reflecting the pro rata share of the actual total cost of capital expenditures of the road improvements necessitated by or benefitting the surface mining operation can be transferred to the surface mining operator if the determination is made that the increased traffic on the road due to the surface mining activity will damage the road. The Board finds that any other negative economic consequences resulting from the protection of the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts are secondary. If the County were to experience a decline in tourism as a result of the failure to protect the resource conflicts at Site No. 294, that would be a negative economic consequence. The Board finds that Site No. 294 is not a significant portion of the wildlife resource and its value as a wildlife habitat is already affected by the presence of nuisances to the wildlife reducing its potential for wildlife habitat and tourism. The site is not visible to those travelling along Johnson Road. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource will not significantly affect the level of tourism in Deschutes County. 17 tt n 132,2 11. ESEE Analysis - Resource Conflicts - Protecting the Resource Conflicts over the Aggregate Resource 1 This section of the findings addresses the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource of protecting the conflicting resources. 2 Environmental Consequences. Protecting the conflicting resources over the aggregate resource would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. Full protection of the resource conflicts of wildlife habitat and open space would preclude surface mining. The impacts of dust, noise and human presence, traffic, vegetation removal -and changes in topography which are associated with the surface mining activity would be eliminated. However, not protecting the aggregate resource would preclude the opportunity for the enhancement of the wildlife forage and cover which would be attained as a part of the mining operation and ongoing reclamation plan. Further, negative environmental consequences to the resource conflicts would result from the extension of rural -residential uses or other conflicting uses in the area if the aggregate resource is not protected. Not preserving Site No. 294 for mining would mean that other types of uses conflicting with the inventoried resources could be introduced which would result in negative environmental consequences to the resource conflicts. 3 Energy Consequences. Protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would have negative energy consequences. The failure to protect aggregate resources which are located in close proximity to the market area involving diminished haulage distances to the major aggregate market areas would result in increased energy consumption to transport aggregate resources located further from the market area. The protection of the resource conflicts would have a positive energy consequence of allowing visitors or tourists to view these resources without expending additional fuel to travel further distances. However, given the small size of Site No. 294, its location at the extreme edge of the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, and the fact that it is not visible from the transportation route, the positive energy consequence from the protection of the resource conflicts is insignificant. 4 Social Consequences. The social consequences of protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would both be positive and negative. If the conflicting resource uses of open space and wildlife habitat were fully protected, it would eliminate the impacts associated with surface mining activities including dust, noise and human presence, traffic impacts, vegetation removal and soil/topographical changes because full protection of these resources over the aggregate resource would preclude surface mining. By eliminating those impacts which, in the absence of mitigation measures, result in negative social consequences to the resource uses by impairing the ability of 18 t 1323 people to view open space area and wildlife habitat, a positive social consequence results. On the other hand, preserving the resource conflicts will have a negative social consequence if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. The deterioration of the road infrastructure, inadequate aggregate to meet the demand for commercial, industrial or residential development, or having aggregate resource at an increased cost is a negative social consequence. An inability of the county to provide for the development needs of the county is a negative social consequence. Further, failure to preserve aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area will increase the overall cost of aggregate from inventories located further from the market area resulting in a negative social consequence. 5 Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would be negative. The Board finds that the failure to protect a sufficient supply of aggregate for the future growth of the County will result in increased cost for the resource. Increases in aggregate resource costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to be hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by the transportation costs. The overall County inventory for sand and gravel, excluding the material within the urban growth boundary which was not included in the County's inventory process, consists of approximately 44 million cubic yards of available aggregate. Based on an estimated 2 million cubic yard annual aggregate demand, (Ordinance No. 90-028, incorporated herein by this reference), the County's inventoried aggregate sites are sufficient to serve the County only for the 20 year planning period. Aggregate is a finite resource and failure to preserve sufficient quantities for future growth is not readily mitigated. 12. ESEE Analysis - Conflicting Land Uses - Protecting the Aggregate Resource over the Conflicting Land Uses 1 This section addresses the ESEE consequences on the conflicting land uses from protecting the aggregate resource. Both the impacts on the resource site and on the conflicting land uses are considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. 2 Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. In the absence of restrictions on the surface mining activity, the conflicting land uses would be adversely affected by the impacts of dust, noise, traffic impacts and changes to the landscape/topography associated with surface mining activities. The Board finds that the adverse environmental consequences to the conflicting land uses can be mitigated by the implementation of restrictions on the surface mining activity. Buffering to limit noise impacts, curtailment of dust emissions and limiting the 19` 0'1 - °1324 active mining area to five acres will significantly reduce the adverse environmental consequences on the conflicting land uses. In addition, restrictions on the hours and seasons of operation will likewise significantly reduce the adverse environmental consequences on conflicting land uses. The Board has considered the Standlee report which analyzed the noise impacts of the proposed surface mining operations on the existing conflicting land uses. The Board finds that the noise associated with the surface mining operation is reduced by muffling devices, natural and man-made berms and the distance between the noise source and the conflicting land uses. The Board finds that with implementation of the above -referenced noise mitigation measures, the noise impacts associated with the surface mining operation can meet DEQ standards. However, to further protect conflicting land uses, the Board finds that on-site crushing, which generates the highest level of noise of the various components of the operation, should not be permitted, in view of the proximity of the Bend Aggregate crushing operation at Tumalo. The Board finds that, due to close proximity of numerous existing dwellings to the proposed crusher site, the noise impacts of crushing on-site should be eliminated altogether, by requiring that crushing take place off-site. The Board recognizes that conflicting evidence regarding the availability of fill for man-made berms has been presented. According to a report prepared by Mr. Albert Duble, dated March 7, 1989, 16,700 cubic yards of fill are needed to construct a 10 foot high berm around each 5 -acre phase of the mining operation. Such a berm is called for in the Standlee report to mitigate noise impacts. Based on the Century West report referenced in Sections 4.7 to 4.14 herein, there is an average of between 2.2 and 2.5 feet of overburden in the areas to be mined. The Board finds that this quantity of overburden is sufficient to construct the man-made berms called for in the Standlee report. The Board recognizes that there is other conflicting evidence regarding noise, however the Board notes that the only evidence based on on-site testing is the Standlee report, which found that with the mitigation measures adopted in the operational plan, the surface mining activity meets DEQ noise standards. The Board accepts these findings and believes that, with mitigation, the noise impacts will not be significant. With respect to the impact of fugitive dust on the conflicting land uses, the Board finds that the implementation of operational measures will reduce the impact such that it is not significant. The operational plan provides for the control of dust during each stage of the mining operation, (Section 10 herein) and the Board believes that the proposed operational plan measures will serve to mitigate the impact of fugitive dust emissions so that this impact is not significant. 20 L01 - 13 Z5 The Board further finds that the surface mining operation will not result in adverse environmental consequences to the supply of water for the conflicting land uses. The Board finds that a community water system serves most of the residents in the area that uses a 795 foot deep well for a water source south of the site. The Board finds that this well penetrated earthen materials for a depth of 763 feet before encountering water. The Board finds that other wells in the impact area range in depth from 60 to 800 feet deep with all but three of the wells exceeding 300 feet. The Board finds that these wells withdraw water from deeper aquifers that have little or no hydraulic connection with a shallow perched water zone located on the site. The Board finds that only one well located to the south of the site has the potential for impact from the surface mining operation. It is a well 83 feet deep located to the south and east of Site No. 294.-- Because the well is open to all zones below 18 feet, it is difficult to determine which zones contribute water to the well. The Board finds that the static water level is 40 feet below the surface which suggests that the well has penetrated a water bearing zone below a boulder conglomerate extending 37 feet below ground. The Board accepts the conclusion from CH2M Hill that if dewatering of the project area is necessary, the water level in the conglomerate may be affected resulting in a decrease yield from the well from water bearing zones in the conglomerate. The Board finds that this potential is a negative environmental consequence. The Board accepts CH2M Hill's evaluation of this groundwater resource that the shallow perched zone results from both leakage of irrigation water from the Tumalo Irrigation canal west of the site and from flood irrigation of the site. The Board finds that flood irrigation of the site was terminated in 1988 and that a spring on the site which was recharged by the perched zone went dry. The Board finds that springs on property to the east of the site serve as the water supply for one residence. The Board accepts the report from CH2M Hill that the perched zone may recharge these springs, and that terminating flood irrigation on the site caused the flow of water to stop in the on-site spring. The Board also finds that terminating floor irrigation on-site did not cause any reported stoppage in the flow of water to off-site springs that serve the residence to the east of the site. As a result, the Board finds that protection of the aggregate resource is unlikely to affect significantly the availability of water in springs to the residence to the east of the site. The Board finds that the traffic associated with the surface mining operation will access the site under the terms of the operational plan by a new access road, permitted by the Deschutes County Public Works Department which will by-pass the access route presently utilized by the existing conflicting land uses in the area. The Board finds that providing for a separate access road from that used by area residents will reduce the traffic impacts on the conflicting land uses. 21 '01 ^ 13"G The Board further finds that the traffic from the surface mining operation will utilize Johnson Road for the transport of the aggregate resource to the Bend Aggregate crushing site in Tumalo. The Board finds that under the proposed operational plan, the traffic impact would be approximately 4-6 trucks per hour in a 10 -hour day. The Board finds that Ordinance No. 90-014 authorizes the County to require improvements or fees in lieu of improvements if improvements to the road are required as a result of the surface mining operation. Thus, the Board finds that the traffic impact of the surface mining activity to the users of Johnson Road, including bicycle traffic, can be mitigated, even if the traffic impact exceeds the projected level, by the improvements or by fees in lieu of improvement provisions of Ordinance No. 90-014. 3 Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in both positive and negative economic consequences. The Board recognizes that property owners adjacent to Site No. 294 as well as other surface mining sites have claimed that the protection of the aggregate resource adversely impacts the property values on adjacent properties. The Deschutes County Assessor's office has analyzed the property tax assessment values of specific parcels adjacent to and within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mining sites in order to evaluate whether protecting the aggregate resource causes a downward fluctuation in property values of adjacent parcels or nearby properties. The Board accepts the analysis of the Deschutes County Assessor's Office that there has been no evidence of decreased property assessment values on parcels adjacent to and within one-half mile of existing or proposed surface mining sites. The same analysis from the Deschutes County Assessor's office shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The Board accepts and believes the economic property value trending analysis from the County Assessor and finds that no significant negative economic consequence to the property values of the conflicting land uses results from the protection of the aggregate resource site. The Board finds that protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in the increased cost of maintaining the transportation infrastructure caused by the higher rate of deterioration on the roads which bear the traffic associated with the surface mining activity. For Site No. 294, its close proximity to the market area minimizes this negative economic consequence and, the preservation of aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area results in net positive economic consequences by minimizing the need to maintain the transportation infrastructure which would be utilized by the transportation of the aggregate resource located further from the market demand area. By Ordinance No. 90-014, the County has required that improvements or fees in lieu of improvements reflecting the pro rata share of the actual total cost of capital expenditures of the 22 I ()"'$'I 13 road improvements necessitated by or benefitting the surface mining operation can be transferred to the surface mining operator if a determination is made that the increased traffic on the road due to the surface mining activity will damage the road. Preservation of the aggregate resource adds to the overall supply of aggregate which serves to maintain an economical cost of the resource in the County. Failure to protect an adequate supply would result in negative economic consequences. Protecting the aggregate resource will have some short- term negative impacts on the ability to utilize the site for other uses. However, surface mining is a transitional use and by preserving the aggregate resource site for resource production, the site is still able to provide economic benefits to the community presently and in the future. The Board finds that the value of using the site for other uses such as farming and agriculture prior to mining, and its economic value for other uses following mining, is a positive economic consequence to protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses. 4 Social Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses would result in both positive and negative social consequences to the conflicting land uses. The impacts of dust, noise, increased traffic and aesthetic considerations related to the topographical/landscape changes associated with surface mining would adversely affect the scenic amenities, liveability and social character of the conflicting land uses. The significance of the negative social consequences of these impacts on these conflicting land uses can be substantially diminished by the implementation of dust emission controls, buffers from noise impact and operational restrictions on the surface mining activity. Buffering to reduce noise and visual impacts, the placement of berms around the active mine area to screen the view of the active mine site area from existing land use conflicts, along with the construction of a new access road bypassing the roads presently used by the residents in the area will reduce impacts on the liveability of scenic amenities and the quality of life in the area. The Board further finds that the recreational opportunities offered by Tumalo Creek will not be impacted by the surface mining operation so that no negative social consequence will result. No mining is proposed immediately adjacent to the Tumalo Creek canyon and the Board accepts the report of ODFW that no adverse consequences to the Tumalo Creek drainway or its fish resources will occur as a result of the surface mining operation. Preserving of the aggregate resource serves to protect the area from additional development which could otherwise have negative social consequences to the existing conflicting uses by changing the social character of the area. 23 _; . 5 Enerav Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in positive energy consequences. Although increased energy consumption will be necessary at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to operate the surface mining equipment and fuel necessary to transport the aggregate product to the end use, the location of Site No. 294, near the major aggregate market relative to other aggregate sites located further from the market area makes the expenditure of energy for transportation insignificant. Utilizing aggregate resources near the major market areas results in positive energy consequences when compared to the energy utilization by inventoried sites further from the market area. Failure to protect the aggregate resources in close proximity to the market would result in significant negative energy consequences since additional energy consumption would be necessary to transport the aggregate resources located greater distances than Site No. 294 from the market area. 13. ESEE Consequences - Conflicting Land Uses - Protecting the Conflicting Land Uses over the Aggregate Resource 1 This section of the findings addresses the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource of protecting conflicting land uses. Both the impacts on the resource and the conflicting uses are considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. 2 Environmental Consequences. Protecting conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. Allowing the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would preclude the enhancement of the site for other resources, which is a planned component of the surface mining reclamation. The wildlife resource at Site No. 294 will be enhanced as a result of mining and reclamation. Better forage can be introduced that will enhance the site for deer winter range or other wildlife. Adding new cover will also enhance the wildlife use of the area. Allowing the conflicting land uses could have the long-term adverse environmental consequence of reducing available food and cover for wildlife, thereby limiting the overall supply of wildlife habitat in the area. This in turn would increase competition for the adjoining habitat. Allowing the conflicting land uses with their associated human presence, noise and dogs would increase both the mortality rate of the wildlife due to the increased traffic in the area generated by the conflicting land uses and the harassment of wildlife by the dog and human presence. On the other hand, protecting the conflicting land uses and precluding surface mining at the site would have the environmental consequence of eliminating the impacts of dust, noise, traffic impacts and topographical and landscape changes associated with surface mining which, in the absence of restrictions on operation and/or mitigation, can be a negative environmental consequence. 24 , 1011 - 1329 3 Social Consequences. Protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would have negative social consequences on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. An adequate supply of aggregate is needed to maintain the County road transportation infrastructure and to permit the .development of housing and commercial/industrial uses. Negative social consequences to the County will result if the building costs increase from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 4 Energy Consequences. Allowing the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource at Site No. 294 would have a negative energy consequence because aggregate resources necessary for County supply would have to be obtained from sites at a greater distance from the market area. This would increase the energy consumption necessary for transportation of the aggregate resource and the cost of maintaining the transportation system bearing the burden of that increased traffic. Allowing the conflicting land uses would increase the traffic using the county's transportation infrastructure. The development of conflicting uses with a greater life span than surface mining would have a greater long-term negative energy consequence than surface mining. 5 Economic Consequences. Protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource can have the effect of preventing or limiting the utilization of the aggregate resource at the site due to the impacts of noise, dust, traffic and aesthetic considerations related to the topographical and landscape impacts which constrain surface mining activities located near conflicting land uses. The Board finds that the failure to protect a sufficient supply of aggregate resources will have negative economic consequences. An inadequate supply of the resource will result in increased cost. To the extent that aggregate would need to be hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by the transportation costs. Allowing the conflicting land uses would permanently preclude utilization of the resource. 14. Program to Achieve Goal 5 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-010, the Board finds that there is adequate information on the location, quality and quantity of the inventoried aggregate resource, as well as on the nature of the conflicting land uses, resource conflicts, and ESEE consequences for Site No. 294. Based on the determination of the ESEE consequences, the County has developed a program to achieve Goal 5. The Board finds that based on the ESEE consequences, both the aggregate resource and the resource conflicts are important relative to one another. The ESEE consequences should be balanced so as to protect the aggregate resource to the extent referenced herein and to limit the resource conflicts so as to protect the aggregate resource to the desired extent. Accordingly, the Board 25 j0-1 -, 1 3 ,3 0 finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), protection of the resource conflicts shall be allowed but in a limited way so as to protect the aggregate resource site. Based on the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting land uses and protecting the inventoried aggregate resources, the Board finds that with respect to existing conflicting land uses, both the aggregate resource and the existing conflicting land uses are important relative to each other. Accordingly, the Board finds that, pursuant to OAR 660-16-0010, it will protect the aggregate resource and the existing conflicting land uses in favor of each other. The Board finds that existing conflicting land uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. The Board finds that the value of potential future development of conflicting land uses to the inventoried aggregate resource are not important enough to limit the protection of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future conflicting land uses, if any, can be accommodated on other similarly zoned lands in the County. To implement this decision Site No. 294 will be zoned for surface mining ("SM"), subject to the following ESEE conditions: (1) Allow surface mining activities in accordance with the site operational plan, excluding a crushing operation on-site. (2) The hours of operation are restricted to 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. (3) That a winter closure plan be finalized by the owner/operator and ODFW. (4) That DEQ noise standards be met. (5) That water rights stay on the property and be put to a beneficial use for at least five years after the surface mining operation. (6) That excavation be limited to five acres at any one time with concurrent reclamation. (7 ) That the slope on the reclaimed land be no more than 5:1. (8) That the reclaimed land be graded to allow irrigation. (9) That vegetative screening be supplied to the greatest extent possible and in the best available manner. NEI (10) That public works be consulted regarding the cumulative impacts on Johnson Road due to mining activities on the site and other sites. (11) That a new access be constructed at the northwest portion of the site. Resource Conflicts. The Board finds that the ESEE conditions on the use of the aggregate resource limits the protection of the aggregate resource in order to protect the resource conflicts. The Board further finds that such mitigation will not prevent the county from achieving its goal of protecting the aggregate resource, since mining will be permitted subject to ESEE conditions. Aggregate Resource. The Board finds that the aggregate resource will be protected by zoning Site No. 294 for surface mining ("SM") to allow for surface mining operations. The Board finds that Ordinance No. 90-014 allows mining activities as permitted or conditional uses in the SM zone. Conflicting uses such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit the surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the SM zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral and aggregate resources is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of the protecting sufficient mineral and aggregate resources to meet the County's aggregate needs. Conflicting Land Uses. The Board finds that the imposition of the Surface Mining Impact Area ("SMIA") combining zone on the impact area as set forth in Ordinance No. 90-014 will restrict conflicting land uses and further protect the aggregate resource. The impact area surrounding the SM zone on Site No. 294 is so designated. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting land uses as follows: (1) New conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to the SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activity; and (2) In all cases of new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses, such uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. 27 1(j'I - 13:3 c The Board finds that such provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflicting future land uses. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the requirement that newly -sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, and adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations, as provided for in Ordinance No. 90-014. The Board finds that in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning Site No. 294 for surface mining and protecting the site from future conflicting land uses, satisfies the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resource to meet the needs of the County. W56/01/0006/08 28 _ 3 101 - 13:33 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 296 Site Number 296, occupying tax lot 2702 in Township 17 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 22, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 296 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located in the southwest quarter of section 22 in township 17, range 11, in an area located off Johnson Road at Shevlin Park. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned SMR, F-2, WA and OS&C. This site is listed in the staff report as being 25 acres of a 500 -acre parcel. The Board is zoning 40 acres based upon area maps submitted by the applicant. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 10:1 - 13:34 mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of excellent quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is comprised of rolling hills which slope down to Tumalo Creek. There are no special views, and the site is located in an area of active logging. This site is naturally vegetated with trees, sagebrush and grasses. The subject site has been used in the past as a cinder pit. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route, with medium frequency of use, and medium use by sensitive raptors. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject property is near Shevlin Park which is zoned OS&C. The adjacent OS&C zoning indicates important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 i01 ,. 1335 2. Impacts on deer would include further destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by continued surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and continued human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. 3. Impacts on raptor use would include destruction of cover for the raptors and displacement and destruction of food sources, increased human presence and noise, all of which would tend to drive raptors away from the immediate area. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the surrounding area consist of forest uses and Shevlin Park. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the OS&C zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 i0l ^ 133E 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 i01 133_f deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Noise from mining in the area will have an impact on Shevlin Park. However, this is an intermittent impact and mitigated by the fact that the site is located approximately one-half mile from the wes- terly boundary of the park. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. ��►� � 1333 Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 i0l - 1333 face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource, and this site has a large quantity of cinders. C. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 A-1 1340 properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board -finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 101 - 1341 designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every cinder site over which the County has land use juris- diction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 { 101 -, 1342 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 i0l - 1343 transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. The conditions set forth by the ODFW in their letter of October 10, 1989 identifying recommending this site for deer winter range and special wildlife considerations. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. The Board further finds that SM zoning shall be applied only to the southwest quarter of Section 22 Township 17 Range 11. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the winter processing limitations at the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 r a4 l b,T- A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #296 MAP DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION/MAP SHEET TABLE REGARDING SURFACE MINING LOCATIONS GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/10/87 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/4/86 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/9/85 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/1/84 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 8/26/83 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/20/82 REPORT OF ON—SITE INSPECTION DATED 12/4/81 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/7%88 APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAP PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MYLAR on t nips S Uzi c Cfmm: cm,�.:�—��s ^1345 A 01 13 4 6 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 297 Site Number 297, occupying a portion of tax lot 100 in Township 17, Range 11 E.W.M., Sections 22 and 23, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 26, 1989 the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 297 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located East of Johnson Road near The Farm subdivision. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned SMR and RR -10 with an LM and WA combining zone. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10 with an LM and WA combining zone. (The Board notes that the staff report summary of the zoning is in error.) This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 iot 13d In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife concerning wildlife values, from Don and Linda Trujillo, land owners in the nearby subdivision, Don Ring, owner of the Farm subdivision, Rick Amonson, regarding the history of the site, and Ted Young for Crown Pacific. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 60,000 cubic yards of cinders of poor quality. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located east of Johnson Road across the road from The Farm subdivision. Access onto the site is by cindered roads. The site is located on the southern flanks of Tumalo Butte and slopes down to the south. The site contains an existing cinder pit excavated into the side of Tumalo Butte. The rest of the site is natural. The site is naturally vegeta- ted with pine trees, sagebrush and grasses. The area is within the Tumalo deer winter range. The site is located in a suburban residential and mining are to the west of Bend. There are residential properties within a half mile in all directions. The site has low visibility from the surrounding residential properties. To the south is the Farm subdivision, which is currently sparsely settled with average quality homes. To the north on the north flanks of Tumalo Butte is the Saddleback subdivision. These homes have no direct view of the site, but are within half a mile. To the west is Johnson Road and residential acreage properties. These homes are within a half mile of the site. Shevlin Park is just within a half mile to the South. The site has apparently be used as a source for building logging roads in the area. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a the Tumalo deer winter range. The site is listed on the Comprehensive 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 0-1 - 1343 plan as being within the deer winter range. The WA zoning likewise indicates important deer range values. 2. Scenic values. The LM indicates high concern Road. In addition, the to the south. Although space values, the RR -10 values. Conflicts zoning adjacent to the site for scenic values along Johnson site is close to Shevlin Park the staff report indicates open zoning does not support such Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust from would most likely be visible within the LM zone along Johnson Road and from Shevlin Park. (2) Impacts on deer would include further destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by continued surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and continued human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. These conflicts would not operate at a high level at this site were it to remain operating at its current low level of use. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, would impact 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 8 i �1,1 - 1 343 wildlife, [open space] and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the SMR and RR -10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the SMR and RR -10 zones would include: (1) At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SMR zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture or forestry may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated por- tions of the site. Uses in the RR -10 zone would also be conflicting in this regard, except for farms uses on unexcavated portions of the site. (2) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and off-road vehicle tracks. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly on residential uses. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The public testimony included testimony that the area bounding Johnson Road was designated for protection of scenic values and that permitting surface mining in the area would be inconsistent with that designation. Don Ring testified that in developing The Farm subdivision, he had made a considerable investment in underground utilities to protect scenic values. Furthermore, mining and the traffic impacts associated with it would not be compatible with the adjacent subdivision. Other testimony was received from 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 3 r i oll. - 1350 recent purchasers of residential lots in the Farm sub- division, citing incompatibility of the surface mine with residential uses from the standpoint of noise, and with scenic values. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts, the conflicting uses in the zone are as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are a number of existing homes within close proximity to the site and there are active plans to construct additional homes in The Farm subdivision that would not be compatible with surface mining uses. As for the other potential conflict- ing uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources could be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and visually disturb the landscape. Such impacts could spoil the attributes leading owners of adjacent rural residential properties to live where the do. Many people prefer to live in rural subdi- visions due to the wildlife and scenic resources. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued or increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. There is some degree of need in the County for cinders and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that the cinders at this site have been used primarily for logging road maintenance and construction, that this site is located in close proximity to Johnson road and consequently that the site would be conveniently situ- ated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway main- tenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 IQ -1 1352 Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufa- cturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Des- chutes County has a new policy that states that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. There- fore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect ag- gregate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- s - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 i s • LO.1 1353 life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the conflicting natural resources are more important than the cinder resource based on the following facts: (a) This cinder source is of poor quality and is a small quantity site; failure to zone this site will not adversely affect the supply of cinders in the county; (b) There are other cinder sources in the County that the County is protecting that can supply cinders for road maintenance needs; (c) Although the site is well located to provide cinders for maintenance of Johnson Road, the site has not been used for the purpose of supplying cinders for public roadway purposes; there are other sites zoned for surface mining convenient to the area that can serve that purpose, including the sites near Shevlin Park (site no. 296) and Laidlaw Butte in Tumalo (site no. 357); (e) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (f) The scenic views along Johnson Road and from Shevlin Park are enjoyed by many people. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. The Board overrules the staff report in this regard. It appears that the staff recommendation was based in part upon an erroneous determination of the amount and quality of the cinder resource at the site. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 f 1354 Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity could be high in this case due to the fact that it would be located immediately adjacent to a subdivision. Public testimony from nearby property owners illuminated concerns about the noise impacts of surface mining and its impact on the scenery surrounding their properties. Some of 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 those consequences have already been imposed upon the surrounding properties due to the fact that this is an existing mine. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby roadways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. On the other hand, much of the area within one-half mile of the mine has already been developed or planned for develop- ment. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The protection of conflicting land uses could have the effect of causing higher transportation costs to the extent that denial of mining approval would cause cinders to be hauled to their point of use from more remote sites. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, there is an added cost of .22 per ton mile from extraction sites to the point of use. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. This particular site, at 60,000 cubic yards, represents a small percentage of the total cinders available in the County. (The Board notes that.the staff report is in error in this regard.) 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by develop- ment where there is none now. In this case, however, development has already occurred to the north of the site in the Saddleback development and has begun to occur in the Farm subdivision. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater distan- ces. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Mineral Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that relative to one another the conflicting uses are more important than the cinder resource. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 (b) Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. With that commitment comes economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who live in and patro- nize those uses; Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will protect fully the conflicting uses at and surround- ing the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting resources and uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting mineral resources, as the Board finds that there has never been a concern about the adequacy of cinder availability in the County and that it has chosen to zone and protect 24 cinder sites representing 21,830,000 cubic yards of cinders. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #297 �f 1353 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. CROWN PACIFIC INVENTORY SHEET 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS AND STAFF REPORT 4. STAFF COMMENTS 5. NOTIFICATION MAPS 6. MYLAR 7. LETTER FROM DON & LINDA TRUJILLO 8/2/89 g 3cavd o6 Kacicx m'►nx+,ks 9. emrd „L Cc„nr,r,-i,ss►c�,t cs deusion r 5 �� F ill - 1353 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 303 Site Number 303, occupying a portion of tax lot 300 in Township 17, Range 12, Section 7, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 303 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located off Johnson Road one mile southwest of Tumalo State Park. The site is owned by Cascade Pumice and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20, MUA-10 and UAR-10. This site was identified as containing aggregate and pumice resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of State Parks and Recreation 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 1360 (State Parks), the operator of the site, the Coalition for the Deschutes and neighborhood residents. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has two types of mineral resources: 750,000 cubic yards of good quality pumice; and 101000 cubic yards of sand and gravel. The sand and gravel resource has largely been mined out by previous mining operations. Therefore, this analysis will focus on the pumice resource. 2. Site characteristics. The site is just off Johnson Road approximately .75 miles southwest of Tumalo State Park and 1.5 miles south of Highway 20. Johnson Road runs just west of the site, touching it in the NW corner. Access is via a dirt/gravel road, off Johnson Road. The west half of the site is primarily natural with juniper tree and some sagebrush. There are two small pumice quar- ries on the west half. Part of the east half has been cleared and mined. No improvements are located on the property. This a relatively sparsely developed area of larger residen- tial acreages. Directly west of the subject site is a gravel reserve site. To the south are 40 -acre residential properties. 500 feet to the east lies the Deschutes River and the Deschutes Scenic Waterway, with a residential property in between the mine and the river. Within a half mile to the north lies the Tumalo Rim subdivision, with average quality homes on half -acre lots. Also within a half mile to the north are farm properties, an older gravel pit, and Tumalo State Park. Across the Deschutes River to the east is undeveloped land. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range, with medium frequency of use. The surrounding properties all have 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 10-1 - 1361 a Wildlife Area combining zone, indicating that this area is part of the Tumalo winter deer range. There is also medium sensitive raptor use in the area. Neigh- borhood residents testified to seeing eagles in the area. 2. State Scenic Waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River has been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Such designation includes a 1/4 mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that a portion of the site falls within the scenic waterway corridor. State scenic waterway designation is based upon a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, historic, archeological, recreational and outdoor values. From the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River study, the outstanding attributes of the river in this segment appear to be its scenic and recreational qualities. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County, that study noted that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 3. Open space. The surrounding zoning of EFU-20 indicates high open space values. In addition, as the testimony of State Parks indicates, the site is located between two parcels of land that are a part of the Tumalo State Park, which also indicates high open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 101 -"1:62 generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has characterized the impact of noise on deer at this site as medium. (3) Impacts on the Deschutes River State Scenic Waterway would include visual impacts from surface and vegeta- tion disturbance within the scenic waterway corridor as set forth in paragraph (1) above. In addition, testi- mony of area residents indicated that the usual winds blow dust from the site toward the river and the state park. Because the pit is on a bluff, noise from the site carries over to the river and to Tumalo State Park. Such impacts would adversely affect the special scenic and recreational qualities of the Deschutes River and Tumalo State Park. There is no indication that surface mining would create water quality pro- blems, since the site is set back from the river. State scenic waterway status does not preclude mining in scenic waterways, but allows for mining operations in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks Department regulation. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would have an adverse impact on wildlife, open space and scenic resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the SM, EFU-20, UAR-10, and MUA 10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and at Section 4.100 (SM) of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15, and Section 10 of the Bend Area General Plan, PL -11. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 1(J-1 - 1 363 At the site (1) The Board finds that the site is already committed to surface mining and that the existing surface mining conflicts with other allowed and conditional uses in the SM zone in that occupation of the surface area of the site for mining prevents other uses from being established. (2) The impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensi- tive uses (as defined below) that could be established on unoccupied portions of the site. As a practical matter, such conflicts are not of great consequence, since the owner of the site has chosen to commit the site to surface mining. Surrounding zones (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, other mining or geothermal uses, personal landing strip uses, forest products processing uses, and hydroelectric uses. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and community and park -type uses. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing are conflicting in that full protection of those use would preclude continued mining at the site or cause limita- tions to be put on mining activities. The Board finds that there are existing uses in the area that would be impacted by the above-described conflicts. Specifically, the residential uses in the nearby 40 -lot 5 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 303 e :; O :i0`t 1364 Tumalo Rim Drive subdivision to the North and the adjacent residence to the East would be subject to noise near the subdivision and possible dust impacts. Increased truck traffic on Johnson Road could adversely affect the safety of Tumalo Rim Drive subdivision residents. In addition, there was testimony that Johnson Road is heavily used by bicy- clists. The Board finds that the surface mine is not visible from the Tumalo Rim subdivision and would be diffi- cult to see from the residence immediately to the East. The site would be most visible from the undeveloped land to the East. The Board finds that visitors to Tumalo State Park would also be affected based upon the testimony of State Parks and neighborhood residents. Tumalo State Park receives high campground and day use and that the site is located between two portions of the Park. State Parks testified that day hikers use the undeveloped portions of the park adjacent to site 303. In addition, the site is visible from the devel- oped portions of the Park and from the River. Neighborhood residents testified that the usual winds blow dust toward the park and that sound carries from the site toward the river and the park. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, open space, and scenic waterway values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un - 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 io't 1365 sightly areas in the county. This could be an importance consequence, given the proximity of the site to Tumalo State Park and since the Deschutes River has been found to be the most important recreational feature in the County. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and exacerbate an existing scar in the landscape. The impact would be felt primarily by those making use of Tumalo State Park and the Deschutes River. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic qualities of the Deschutes River corridor. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views from the Deschutes River corridor would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topo- graphy. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances, since in any event the current operator would have to reclaim those portions of the site that are not grandfathered. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Although pumice is not as necessary a mineral as sand and gravel is, it is still a basic material and chances are that energy would be expended in obtaining a substitute material. There would be no negative effect in protecting the pumice resource. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 of 136G Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of Goal 5 resources could preclude or curtail mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the Des- chutes River corridor could only be fully protected by precluding or placing limits on mining. The Board finds that pumice resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufac- turing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Pumice is not thought to be in short supply in the County. This coupled with the fact that pumice is not as essential a mineral as is aggregate would make for much less of an economic effect if conflicting resources were to be pro- tected. Still, pumice does have value as a material for building blocks and as an export for the local economy. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that pumice is in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social conse- quences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the pumice resource would not have the same kind of social consequence that failure to protect aggregate sources could. In general, whatever the social consequences of not allowing increased pumice mining at the various pumice sites, the effect would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, dust traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of scenic resources and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with mineral resources, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy consequences from preserving the conflicting Goal 5 resources would be neutral for the reasons set forth in paragraph 8. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 1.0.1 - 136-1" 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the Goal 5 resources and the aggregate resource are impor- tant relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Pumice has value for the economy of Central Oregon as an economic commodity. Given the quality and quantity of pumice present at this site, this is a significant pumice site. (b) This site has been a mining site of long standing. (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (d) The Deschutes River is among the most important natural features in the County, as has been demonstrated by the Ragatz survey and by the designation at this site by state and federal designation for Scenic Waterway status. (e) Preserving the natural qualities of the Deschutes River is important to the burgeoning recreational economy of the County. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the Goal 5 resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the pumice resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 01 'M 1368 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Another potential cost to the community at large is the possible effects on the region's tourist indus- try. Tumalo State Park is a major recreation site in the County, and adverse impacts to the park could have an effect on visitor's attitudes toward the region. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, there is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project as set forth above. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would most likely have neutral or slightly positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some source in any event. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 11 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 r 046-, 16*1 '" 1369 mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts can place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in rural sites such as this can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater overall energy consumption. Increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting residential uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to occupa- tion and development of individual parcels of private property. Associated with such commitment are econo- mic, quality of life and health and safety expecta- tions. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 101 1310 (c) The use at Tumalo Park and sites along the Deschutes River are important as a major recreational site in the County. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening, with particular attention paid to screening from Tumalo State Park or the eastern, north- eastern and southeastern boundaries; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Wildlife restrictions set forth in ODFW's letter of August 10, 1989, shall apply; (e) Excavation shall be limited to five acres with ongoing incremental reclamation (subject to DOGAMI review and approval); (f) Mining operations, including placement of processing operations and equipment and excavation and transport of material shall meet all applicable DEQ noise and dust standards. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 101 -, 13?1 the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 rw� "r-) I r Itkkt ) EXft t bir A, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21,. 22. 1.01 13'13 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #303 COVER INFORMATION SHEET SAME AS ABOVE SAME AS ABOVE SAME AS ABOVE INVENTORY SHEET SAME AS ABOVE CASCADE PUMICE MINING SITES MAPS SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 7/25/88 LETTER CHARLES CLARK/CASCADE PUMICE 6/29/88 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 8/20/86 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 9/10/85 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 7/31/85 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 7/30/85 MEMO FROM FRANK SCHNITZER 4/27/84 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 2/27/84 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 10/4/83 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 8/1/83 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 10/22/82 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 7/29/82 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 12/3/81 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 10/22/81 Fl 10 iOl - 13Y4 23. SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 8/7/81 24. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 9/8/80 25. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 9/4/80 26. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT (AGGREGATE) 27. STAFF REPORT (PUMICE) 28. NOTIFICATION MAPS 29. MYLAR 30. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 31. LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 32. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 33. LETTER FROM DAVID NEROBOLD 8/21/89 34. DEQ SOURCE INSPECTION FORM DATED 8/4/89 b5. d 06 (,G rn m �55►dCie rs llea c (l� rYir n u_ Lc_s 3(0. -doa2j Ob c6rnmib6lonec5 'rta6nn 3-7' fey, to(n d"'�>P'W 9-10-$9 2 r sI . 3 15 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 304 Site Number 304, occupying a portion of tax lots 300 through 302 in Township 17 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 6, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 304 comprises approximately 15 acres and is located on O.B. Riley Road, just north of Tumalo Reservoir Road. The site is owned by Bend Aggregate and Paving and is zoned SM and SMR. Adjacent land is zoned SM, R & D, MUA-10, EFU-20, RSR -5 and RSR -M. The surrounding land is in a mixture of public and private ownership. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 13YG In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife, the Coalition for the Deschutes, a representative from Bend Aggregate and the Parks and Recreation Division of the Oregon Division of Transportation (State Parks). A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 225,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is located along O.B. Riley Road north of Tumalo Reservoir Road along the east boundary of the site. Highway 20 West is one-half mile north. The site is just south of Bend Aggregate & Paving's quarry and office site. There is a paved driveway along the northern border of the site. Tax lots 300 and 301 are natural with juniper trees, sagebr- ush and some pines. There are electric lines running along the northern property line. There is a home on tax lot 302 in the northwest corner of the site and a number of out- buildings around the home. An irrigation canal runs through the property. The surrounding area is primarily a gravel quarry to the north and natural, undeveloped land in other directions. The town of Tumalo is across the highway roughly .3 miles north. Tumalo Rim subdivision is roughly .5 miles south- west. The subdivision is primarily average quality home on .5 acre sites. Some of these homes have views over the existing quarry of the subject site. Within a half mile south of the site is Tumalo State Park, which is very busy during the summer months. Southeast of the site is a gravel quarry, which is site 305/306 on the County's mineral and aggregate inventory. To the west is natural and farm land at a higher elevation. To the east is the Deschutes River and Highway 20 West. Within a half mile of the site the primary uses are gravel quarry to the north, farm land to the west, quarry and residential subdivision to the south and highway and vacant land to the east. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Goal 5. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 01 I3Y7 1. Scenic Values. The southern half of the site has an LM overlay as part of the Highway 20 scenic corridor. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The staff report originally indicated that the site had important deer winter range values; however, during the ESEE process, it was discovered that the site had no such values, and the staff report was amended to reflect that fact. In addition, State Parks testified that the site lies within the Deschutes River Scenic Waterway. The Board finds that the state scenic waterway stops at the northern boundary of Tumalo State Park and the 1/4 mile corridor scenic waterway corridor falls short of this site. The Board finds that the scenic resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protec- tion of such resources, accounting for impacts of vegetation destruction and topographical alteration could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would adversely impact scenic resources. It should be noted, however, that due to the existing mining at the site and in the area, scenic resources have already been impacted. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140, 4.150 and 4.230 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 101 3.f3 At the site (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the SM and SMR zones to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclusion of other uses. (2) On those portions of the site not available for other development, the impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensitive uses, as defined below. These uses would include all uses within the zone except utility uses. In this case, there is a house located on a portion of the site. That house is owned by the operators of the site and as a practical matter would not be in conflict with the mining operation. Surrounding zones (EFU-20, R&D, RR -10, RSR -M, RSR -5, OS&C) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. This area presently has existing research facilities, residential development at the Tumalo Rim subdivision and park uses at Tumalo State Park that would be adversely affected. Tumalo State Park is heavily used in the summer months. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. Because of the site's proximity to the Bend Aggregate plant, truck traffic conflicts with residential neighborhoods would be minimized. The area does have substantial bicycled traffic, which could be adversely affected by truck traffic. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 The staff report indicates that the site is within view of some of the Tumalo Rim Drive homes. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. The Board finds that much of the property immediately adjacent to this site is zoned SM or SMR and is already committed to mining uses. Such surrounding mining development lowers the level of conflict at this site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the countv. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the scenic qualities of the area. The Board finds, however, that the area has a number of existing surface mines already and that continued mining at this site would have only a marginal impact on scenic qualities. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 i0l -,:1380 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have some degree of adverse environmental consequences on scenic qualities. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances, since in any event the operator would be required to restore the site to the extent the permit area is not grandfathered under reclamation laws. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to the Bend Aggregate processing plant and to the Bend- Tumalo market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this that are convenient to urban market areas and process- ing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the scenic resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the County is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend-Tumalo market area and that consequently preserva- tion of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower aggre- gate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The destruction of vegetation and topographical alteration associate with surface mining adversely affects scenic views. Therefore, protection of the natural 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 101 - 1332 resources by precluding mining would have positive environ- mental consequences. In this case, scenic views have already been altered by mining at and around the site. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the scenic resources are not sufficiently impor- tant to warrant protection, due to the level of existing mining at the site and area. The aggregate resource at the site is relatively more important due to the size and quality of the resource and its location close to market centers. Therefore, subject to any limitations placed on the site by conflicting uses, the Board will fully protect the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. There was no testimony on this site concerning property values. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. An additional cost to the community at 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 101 -, 1383 large is the impacts of mining close to recreational sites such as Tumalo State Park. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity would be felt primarily in the Tumalo Rim subdi- vision to the southwest and by the users of Tumalo State Park to the southeast. The high level of use of Tumalo State Park in the summertime would heighten the land use conflicts at this site. Traffic impacts in this case would be minimized by the fact that trucks removing the aggregate from the site would be travelling directly to the Bend Aggregate plant next door for processing of the sand and gravel. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 01 "a1384 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. In addition, there is the further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of aggregate that are located close in to market areas. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and in- creasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 10 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 304 iwi - 1385 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. (c) The site is located close to urban markets and the Bend Aggregate processing plant. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations. The nearby Tumalo Rim subdi- vision is a well established community of homes in the area. (e) Tumalo State Park is heavily -used during the summer months. Recreation sites, such as Tumalo State Park, are increasingly important for the Deschutes County economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 13 8 6 Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, tax lots 300-302 will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening. In particular, the eastern, nor- theastern, and southeastern boundaries of the site shall be screened to screen the project from Tumalo State Park; (c) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; (d) Road access to the site will be limited to the north boundary so as to not increase activity on the old Bend -Sisters Highway or Reservoir Road; The Board finds that processing on site will not be allowed in order to protect the neighboring Tumalo State Park use. Furthermore, the Board finds that tax lot 700 to the south of tax lots 300-302, also owned by Bend Aggregate, is not part of this site and should be rezoned from surface mining in order to offer a further buffer to the nearby state park use. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 .V the surface area of the mineral protected against establishment mining of the mineral or aggre protection advances the goal of mineral or aggregate resources or aggregate needs. i 0 1 - 133.? or aggregate resource is of uses that would prevent gate in the future. Such protection of sufficient to meet the County's mineral 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and the Tumalo State Park use are protected by the require- ment that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise standards, limits on maximum area of surface distur- bance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #304 0l m, 1388 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. LETTER OF QUANTITY FROM FRAISER 6/7/88 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. LETTER COALITION FRO THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 6. DOGAMI SURFACE MINE PERMIT 8/9/89 7. LETTER NORM BEHRENS ODFW 8/21/89 8. SURFACE MINING PERMIT 8/9/89 9. REPORT OF ON—SITE INSPECTION 7/12/89 10. REPORT OF ON—SITE INSPECTION 6/22/89 11. LETTER OLIVER W. FRASER 6/7/88 12. MAP 13. MYLAR 14. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 15. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 I Lo L4,ee- �tu m OaFw cil q-io-V _60&v l Comm �ss�on¢,�, de�e�s►o,n rr;�n -s 1$ • �oa� � C.omrri,'rS�onQtS hea.r�nc� �r;�nw�s Jcl . t�ri�c� Comm, is n �cammencEa-�crn 101 - 138J ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 305/306 Site Number 305/306, occupying a portion of tax lots 700, all of tax lot 100 and 302 in Township 17 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 6, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that prelimin- ary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site numbers 305 and 306 are located adjacent to one another at the intersection of Johnson Road and Tumalo Market Road and comprise approximately 90 acres. The site is owned by R.L. Coats and is zoned SM and MUA-10 (on a portion of tax lot 700). Adjacent land is zoned SM, MUA-10, EFU-20, RSR -5 and RSR -M. The staff report and notice erroneously refer to the site as covering only tax lot 100. The maps, appraiser's observations, photographs and testimony from the applicant and members of the public demonstrate that the site brought to hearing included tax lots 700 located adjacent to the north of tax lot 100. As tax lots 100 and 700 are immediately adjacent to one another and part of the same site complex, and since the remaining aggregate is located on tax lot 700, the Board finds that the notice is sufficient both in content and scope of distribution to ade- quately apprise affected parties of the decision to be made. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 041 -, 1000 HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from R.L. Coats, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Coalition for the Deschutes, the Parks and Recreation Division of the Oregon Division of Transportation (State Parks) and numerous neighbors from the adjacent Tumalo Rim Drive subdivision. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 150,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is located just southwest of the intersection with Tumalo Market Road. The north end lies adjacent to Tumalo Market Road. The east edge is bounded by Johnson Road. Directly to the west is Tumalo Rim subdivision. Access to Highway 20 is one and one-half miles to the north. The site is an old gravel quarry of which the southern portion (tax lot 100) is planted and slowly returning to a natural state under a reclamation plan. The northern portion of the site (tax lot 700) is currently used for storage and is the portion on which additional mining would occur. The mined portion is at a lower grade than the surrounding area to the west and the unmined portions. There are 40 or so homes in a subdivision directly adjacent to the site to the west. At least 9 homes are visible from the site, 6 in the subdivision on Tumalo Rim Drive to the west and 3 on the rim across the Deschutes River to the east. The site is highly visible from these homes and from Highway 20. Within one-half mile to the southeast is Tumalo State Park, which is very busy during the summer months. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 0_1 - 1391 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Conflicting Resources 1. State scenic waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River has been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Such designation includes a 1/4 mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that the site falls within the scenic waterway. State scenic waterway designation is based upon a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, archeological and recreational and other values. From the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River study, the outstanding attributes of the river in this segment appear to be its scenic and recreational qualities. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 2. Open space and scenic. Adjacent land across the Deschutes River is occupied by Tumalo State Park and is zoned open space and conservation (OS&C). Open space enhances this area for the scenic view from Tumalo State Park. 3. Wildlife habitat. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer winter range. The Department has also recognized this site as having medium sensitive raptor use by golden eagles. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 (J 11 ", 13U2 (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construc- tion of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. (3) Impacts on the Deschutes River state scenic waterway would include visual impacts from surface mining and vegetation disturbance within the scenic waterway corridor as set forth in paragraph (1) above. In addition, the corridor would be impacted by the noise and dust from mining operations and increased truck traffic in the area. There is no indication that surface mining at this site would create water quality problems. State scenic waterway status does not preclude mining in scenic waterways, but allows for mining operations in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks approval. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140, 4.150 and 4.230 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the SM and SMR zones to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclusion of other uses. (2) On those portions of the site available for other development, the impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensitive uses, as defined below and aesthetic impacts. These uses would include all uses within the zone except utility uses. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 0' 1333 Surrounding zones (EFU-20, RR -10, RSR -M, RSR -5, OS&C) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. The Board finds that existing residential development at the Tumalo Rim subdivision and park uses at Tumalo State Park that would be adversely affected. The Tumalo Rim subdivision has 40 homes in it, and many of its residents testified concerning the probable impacts of noise on their quality of life. Tumalo State Park is heavily used in the summer months and visitors could expect to be adversely affected by noise from opera- tions and truck traffic. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. Because of the site's proximity to the Tumalo Rim subdivision and to Tumalo State Park, truck traffic conflicts would be substantial. Neighbors testified about their use of area streets and roads for walking being threatened, particularly their ability to walk in safety to the nearby state park. In addition, the area is used extensively by bicyclists, which would likewise be adversely affected. Finally, the state park is bisect- ed by a road that could be used by truck traffic. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The site is within view of 6 of the Tumalo Rim Drive homes and within view of the state park. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. The Board finds that much of 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 [iI rM 1394 the property immediately adjacent to this site is zoned SM or SMR and is already committed to mining uses. Such surrounding mining development lowers the level of conflict at this site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to Tumalo State Park and the Deschutes Scenic Waterway. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife, scenic, and recrea- tional attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic and recrea- tional qualities of the Deschutes River corridor. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild - 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 ;�sa life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views from the Deschutes River corridor would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topography. In addition, the recreational attributes of the Deschutes corridor would be impacted by the noise, dust, and truck traffic associated with surface mining. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances, since in any event the operator would be required to restore the site, to the extent the permit area is not grandfathered under reclamation laws. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to the Bend-Tumalo market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this that are convenient to urban market areas and processing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year 7 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 305/306 planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend-Tumalo market area and that consequently preserva- tion of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower ag- gregate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 Z< 1 3 J _i building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic, wildlife, and recreational values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental conse- quences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources, and scenic and recreational resources are often limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development. Scenic and recreational resources such as the Deschutes waterway are limited in number and cannot be recreated by manmade sub- stitutes. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the natural resources are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the Deschutes County economy; (b) Considering the quantity, quality, and location of this site close to the Bend urban area market, this is an important aggregate deposit; (c) This site is an existing mining site; (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development; and (e) The adjacent Tumalo State Park and Deschutes River are important open space, scenic, and recreation resources, for both visitors and residents. Such resources have importance for the regional economy. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 i 0 1 ' 139b protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. Some neighboring residents expressed concern about their property values. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to recreational sites such as Tumalo State Park. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 I 01 m 1399 to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity would be felt primarily in the Tumalo Rim subdi- vision to the southwest and by the users of Tumalo State Park to the southeast, as set forth above. The high level of use of Tumalo State Park in the summertime would heighten the land use conflicts at this site. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 101 1400 In addition, there is the further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of aggregate that are located close in to market areas. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic and recreational values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Actcirectate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate materials are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 101 - 1401 (c) The site is located close to urban markets. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) This is an existing mining site. (e) Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. The nearby Tumalo Rim sub- division is a well established community of homes in the area. (f) Tumalo State Park is heavily used during the summer months. Recreation sites, such as Tumalo State Park, are increasingly important for the Deschutes County economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the exist- ing zoning on tax lots 100 (SM) and tax lot 700 (SM and MUA- 10) will be maintained, subject to the following ESEE condi- tions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening, with particular attention paid to screening to benefit Tumalo State Park; (c) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekdays; (d) Blasting shall be limited to 10 days in any one year, and shall occur only upon 48 hours notice to all residents within the Tumalo Rim area; 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 (e) Wildlife conditions set forth in the August 10, 1989, ODFW letter, incorporated herein by reference; (f) Extraction at the site shall be limited to five acres at a time; (g) Mining operations, siting of equipment, and trucking of product shall be conducted in such a manner that applicable DEQ standards are met; (h) Mining operations shall be limited to a one-year period, starting on and ending on , except that stockpiling on the northeast portion of the site may continue for up to 6 months after the one-year period; (i) Reclamation of the site must occur concurrently with mining during the one-year period; and (j) A development agreement must be signed between the County and the owner or his assignees that stipulates a specific time period for operating, reclaiming and closing the site. Details to be set during site plan review to include a one-year maximum time limit. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site sill be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact, the restrictions on winter processing, the hours of operation, the 5 -acre limit on excavation, and the reclamation plan conditions. The Board finds that the screening and buffering provisions of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014, meet the ESEE screening and buffering requirements. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting mineral and ag- gregate resources, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 r- i0 " 1403 uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. 15 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 1404 Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise stan- dards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. 16 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #305 01 - ;1 4 0 5 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION SHEET 4. SURFACE MINING PROPERTY SUBMITTED BY BEND AGGREGATE & PAVING 5. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SHEET FOR HAP TAYLOR, JR. GRAVEL PIT 6. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/19/86 7. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/5/85 8. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/16/84 9. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/2/84 10. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/21/83 11. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/29/82 12. MEMO DATED 8/5/81 13. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 7/9/81 14. APPLICATION COVER SHEET 15. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/16/81 1.6. PROVISIONAL SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/11/81 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/19/81 18. ANNUAL REPORT OF RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 5/7/81 19. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/11/77 20. ANNUAL REPORT & RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 3/25/76 01 1406 21. NOTIFICATION MAPS 22. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 23. LETTER FROM DOGAMI ON BOND THEY HOLD FOR RECLAMATION OF SUBJECT SITE 24. LETTER FROM NORM BEHRENS 8/21/89 25. LETTER FROM COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 26. LETTER FROM NORTHON 5/10/89 27. PETITION 2/12/80 28. LETTER TUMALO RIM PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. 2/11/80 29. MYLAR 30. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 31. PETITION FROM TUMALO RIM RESIDENTS 8/14/89 32. LETTER FROM DAN YOUNG 8/15/89 33. ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 34. LETTER FROM T.D. WALKER 8/16/89 35. LETTER FROM DAVID NEWBOLD 8/21/89 36. LETTER FROM DANIEL & TAMBRY BROSE 8/21/89 37. PETITION FROM TUMALO RIM RESIDENTS 8/23/89 38. LETTER FROM TUMALO RIM PROP. ASSOC. DAN YOUNG 5/30/89 K TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #306 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. TABLE OF FUTURE AGGREGATE RESERVES 01 1 1407 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 313 Site Number 313, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 17, Range 14 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose whether the subji aggregate sites, hensive plan and For the reasons should not be so of the hearing before the Board was to determine act site, listed on the County's inventory of should be classified under the County's compre- zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. liven below, the Board determines that this site classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 313 comprises approximately 120 acres, which is located off Dodds Road, roughly one-half mile south of Walker Road and approximately two miles southeast of Alfalfa. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned EFU-40. Surrounding property is zoned MUA-10, RR -10 and EFU-40. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 i 0 l - 1409 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site; from Larry Rice, County Public Works Department, the Central Oregon Audobon Society and numerous surrounding property owners. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of ODOT quality aggregate. The site contains pea gravel, which is generally used as road base and for shoulder rock. This gravel does not require crushing. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is gently rolling hills which has been used as a gravel borrow site in the past. To the north is a large marsh and pond, and evidence indicates this is a significant wildlife habitat. Access to the site is obtained off of Dodds Road which adjoins the site to the east and a COI irrigation canal abuts the site to the west. The significance of the wetland is outlined in the letter from the Audobon Society as well as numerous letters and petitions in the file. This evidence was uncontested. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. Uncontradicted testimony supplied by numer- ous persons indicates that this site contains one of the largest nesting areas of yellow -headed blackbirds in Central Oregon. The site also attracts osprey, blue heron, geese and other waterfowl. There is consid- erable testimony that this is a significant wildlife habitat area that could be affected if surface mining was to occur on the site. ODF&W has also identified the site as having medium - sensitive raptor use. Area residents testified that red-tailed hawks, sharp -shinned hawks, and bald eagles have been observed in the area. 2. Open space values. The site's zoning as EFU-40 indi- cates important open space values. Open space enhances the scenic views from this area toward the Cascades and habitat for deer and other wildlife. Testimony of area residents stressed the spectacular views from the area of the Cascades and the surrounding high desert. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and testimony from area residents, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Testimony from area residents raised the concern that fugitive dust emissions from the site and trucks hauling material away from the site could interfere with the views of the Cascades and the surrounding high desert. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The impact of all this would generally be to displace deer from such areas. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife and open space values in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-40 and the RR -10 zone at and surround- ing the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The County comprehensive plan shows that, although an allowed uses, forestry uses would not occur due to the soils at the site. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 10. , 1411 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting and processing) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. 2. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. Several residents spoke to the fact that they chose to purchase homesites in the this area due to the natural beauty of the area and specifically checked the zoning prior to purchasing to determine whether the area had surface mining activity nearby. 3. Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. This could impact all uses in the EFU-40 zone, except that agricultural uses could be made on the unexcavated portions of the property. 4. There was testimony that siting a surface mine adjacent to homesites could cause a loss in property values and loss of salability of residential properties in the area. The Board finds that in general there is no loss of sales or property values associated with surface mines, as is further discussed below. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, all possible uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses, only residential uses presently occur. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and open space do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 .10.1 - 1412 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and would impact open space values. The social consequences of such impacts would be the reduced wildlife viewing opportunities to area residents and the negative impacts on open space values from fugitive dust. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and open space. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. The presence of a wetland with significant value adjoining the site increases the potential negative environmental consequences of mining on this site. Wetlands in this area are rare. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that preservation of this site would likely have overall positive energy consequences due to the fact that this site is located closer to development activities on the east side of Bend than any other commercial site. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 io`t - 1413 displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 1414 building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of open space and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggre- gate resource, wildlife resources and open space resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site could involve increased haulage distances of aggregate materials to the development projects occurring on the east side of Bend. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would therefore more likely than not have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources values at the site are relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: a. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. b. Deer habitat in the County is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, Board finds that the conflicting deer habitat value should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2) the conflicting natural resource value of deer habitat should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The Board finds that while the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of sur - 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 1415 rounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by area residents, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, blasting, and fugitive dust produced by the proposed surface mine. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals could have overall Positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to development sites east of Bend would compare favorably with haul distances from other sources in the County. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 13 above. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 141 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development, could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments on the east side of Bend would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such develop- ment. 21. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commit- ment is accompanied by economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 1417 Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting deer habitat resource and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of aggregate, which com- bined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #315 .' 0 '1 ," 1418 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. WILLIAMETTE IND. INFORMATION SHEET 3. SAME AS ABOVE #2 4. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION/MAP SHEET 5. SAME AS #4 6. SAME AS #4 7. DESCHUTES COUNTY MAP 8. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 9. COPY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY MAP 10. AERIAL MAP 11. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 5/29/87 12. LETTER DATED 9/2/86 FROM DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL IND. 13. LETTER DATED 8/6/87 FROM DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL IND. 14. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/3/85 15. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/4/84 16. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 11/1/84 17. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/16/83 18. REPORT OF ON -$ITE INSPECTION 5/24/84 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/26/82 20. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 7/22/82 21. PIT INFORMATION SHEET 1 ()�,,1,G 22. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 9/24/81 FROM ODFW 8/21/89 23. PIT INFORMATION SHEET FROM ALTA BRADY 8/24/89 24. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/16/81 25. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/7/80 26. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 6/9/80 FROM STARR RUD 8/15/89 27. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/19/77 28. SURFACE MINING PERMIT APPLICATION FROM T. KRUSE 8/18/89 29. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 2/17/77 FROM A.W. STRUYRENBERG 8/19/89 30. NOTIFICATION MAPS FROM SPRANG 8/21/89 31. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT FROM G. KNECHTIL 8/21/89 32. MYLAR OF TOPO. FROM STARR RUD 8/22/89 33. P.C. RECOMMENDATION 34. ADDENDUM 35. LETTER FROM ODFW 8/21/89 36. LETTER FROM ALTA BRADY 8/24/89 37. LETTER FROM FRANK HUSKIN 8/25/89 38. LETTER FROM STEPHEN SWERTING 8/13/89 39. LETTER FROM STARR RUD 8/15/89 40. LETTER FROM A.W. STRUYRENBERG 8/17/89 41. LETTER FROM T. KRUSE 8/18/89 42. LETTER FROM A.W. STRUYRENBERG 8/19/89 43. LETTER FROM SPRANG 8/21/89 44. LETTER FROM G. KNECHTIL 8/21/89 45. LETTER FROM STARR RUD 8/22/89 47. DOGAMI PERMIT ISSUED 5/4/89 1416 Vila-( �C_"n UDFo-t,` C4-10-'69 y�� ��nn�lY} (�r�rn�'r�;an 2��c�rnmYt��trcn `J`� '?.�sz? o� CCrY►r�1���-:;��n���'� 12���r-�� m,na.t�-� w. CGrnm� EX (e)IT A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2y . 25. 2(o. i 0l 1420 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #313 INVENTORY SHEET NOTIFICATION MAPS PUBLIC WORKS RESOURCE INVENTORY LIST STAFF REPORT & APPRAISERS COMMENTS LETTER FROM CENTRAL OREGON AUDUBON 8/5/89 LETTER FROM ALVIN FINK, JR. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION PHOTOGRAPHS PETITION AGAINST REZONING #1 PETITION AGAINST REZONING #2 PETITION AGAINST REZONING #3 LETTER FROM JOANNA BOOSER 8/3/89 LETTER FROM FRANK SPIECKER 8/7/89 LETTER FROM NAOMI ALBERDING 8/7/89 LETTER FROM FRED ALBERDING 8/7/89 LETTER FROM CENTRAL OREGON AUDUBON 8/5/89 LETTER FROM TED GUDITH 8/2/89 LETTER FROM JAY BOWERMAN 8/2/89 LETTER FROM BOB & LYNN SCOBER 8/2/89 LETTER FROM LEO MAY 8/1/89 LETTER FROM MANDY MILLER 8/1/89 LETTER FROM MRS. PRESTON 7/31/89 MYLAR 'doacd Comm�ysionecs heac�rx� Mlnl��15 e*dsd C0rnmi66:i& e-rS dec is�on m,tnu.?L5 lc#Ar rzsm OD Fv W orto -Sal i�li - 1421 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 314 Site Number 314, occupying tax lot 1100 in Township 17 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 32, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 314 comprises approximately 270 acres and is located on the east side of Byram Road, approximately one-eighth mile north of Highway 20 East. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned EFU-20 and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU- 20, MUA-10 and LM. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 314 101 1422 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 150,000 cubic yards of fill material. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is has natural topography of gently rolling hills, and there are numerous dirt roads on the site. The site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees and sage and there has been no prior mining on the site. There are several subdivisions in the surrounding area and a considerable number of letters were submitted in opposition. Additionally, several persons testified in opposition to zoning the subject site. 3. Conclusionary Findings. The subject site was originally put on the County's inventory as a fill dirt site. The Board finds that there is not evidence that this particular fill material is a valuable Goal 5 resource. As opposed to select fill which has qualities which are unique, this site has not been identified as having a quality of fill material which is unique or has any particular value. The Board finds that fill material of this type is a common material which can easily be obtained throughout Deschutes County. A considerable opposition to the subject site indicates that removal of fill material from this area will create impacts on the local neighborhood. Based upon the above findings, the Board finds no reason to consider this resource for Goal 5 protection. Based upon the fact that there is no evidence to support protecting this type of material, the Board finds that this site should not be zoned for surface mining. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 314 -L.-X4+i6ir a TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #314 itJ 2423 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. NOTIFICATION MAPS 3. PUBLIC WORKS RESOURCE SHEET 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. MYLAR SHOWING LOCATION OF RESIDENCES 6. MYLARS (3) OF TOPO MAP 7. COPY OF ARTICLE IN "CITIZEN" NEWSPAPER 8. LETTER FROM GEORGE BROWN 8/12/89 9. LETTER & PETITION #1 10. LETTER & PETITION #2 11. LETTER FROM ETHEL RIPU 8/10/89 12. LETTER FROM GEORGE BROWN 8/12/89 13. LETTER FROM JUDITH & MICHAEL LUNNY 8/12/89 14. LETTER FROM LEE & JOYCE GARCIA 8/13/89 15. LETTER FROM SHAYNE & SIRGE MELLON 8/14/89 16. LETTER FROM MADELYN C. LUNNY 8/14/89 17. LETTER FROM R.J. LUNNY 8/14/89 18. LETTER FROM WALTER & JUDY HEWITT 8/14/89 19. LETTER FROM GEORGE ROSHAK 8/14/89 20. LETTER FROM CHINA METZER 8/15/89 21. LETTER FROM MARIN METZER 8/15/89 22. LETTER FROM MRS. NORA ARTHUR 8/16/89 14�a 23. LETTER FROM JANET & LARRY BARANY 8/15/89 24. LETTER FROM GLADYS I. BIGLOR 8/15/89 25. LETTER FROM GLADYS I. BIGLOR 8/15/89 26. LETTER FROM ANNA RAUD 8/15/89 27. LETTER FROM PEGGY DRISCOLL 8/15/89 28. LETTER FROM BETTY A. WARRINGTON 8/15/89 29. LETTER FROM JOAN M. STENZEL 8/15/89 30. LETTER FROM ROBERT & KARLENE MCGILL 8/16/89 31. LETTER FROM FRED M. NEWTON 8/16/89 32. LETTER FROM GERALD & SUSAN HUMPHREY 8/15/89 33. LETTER FROM GORDON HANSEN 8/16/89 34. LETTER FROM BRENDA MYERS 8/16/89 35. LETTER FROM MR. & MRS. HAROLD RICHARDSON 8/16/89 36. LETTER FROM JEANNE THOMPSON 8/16/89 37. LETTER FROM SHARON & WES DAWN 8/16/89 38. LETTER FROM MOLBY BARANY 8/17/89 39. LETTER FROM JAMES ARTHURS 8/18/89 40. LETTER FROM HARRY & LESLIE KETRENOS 8/10/89 L4 I. 06 Com m'i t6ioan"s %1eS c i cx rri u S �Z• �' ►ct� �� Comm�Sione(S Gi 6-51oo rrilmzi�.S q3, iatr con-) mr -cup q-to-gj 1eAt,,,r co -f\ Gee,rqe. -i3�Lone, . 9—,,-2n 2 .1 °Loi. - 1425 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 315 Site Number 315, occupying tax lot 200, in Township 14 South, Range 9 E.W.M., Section 5, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 316 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located about one mile off Highway 20 northwest of Black Butte Ranch. The site is owned by Willamette Industries and is under least to Crown Pacific and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 and RR -10. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser hired by the County describing the site and its sur- roundings was entered into the record at that time. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 L..)I - 142E Testimony was also received from a representative of the Black Butte Ranch Homeowner's Association and four neighboring property owners in the Black Butte Ranch Development. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 7 million cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 315 is an existing gravel mine located roughly one mile southwest of Highway 20 just southeast of Black Butte Ranch. The site is located within the Deschutes National Forest and has a number of existing gravel pits in an active logging area. The site is densely forested by a mixture of old growth ponderosa pine, as well as secondary growth and newly planted trees, except where there has been excavation. The forest in the area is predominately ponderosa pine forest. Many of the newly planted trees were planted by the Black Butte homeowners in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Forest Service to preserve the area as a sanctuary for wildlife, including deer, great horned owls, red tailed and Cooper's hawks. Directly to the east and south of the site is Deschutes National Forest Land. To the west of the site is privately held forest land. Diagonally to the south, within 1500 feet, is the northwest corner of the Black Butte Ranch resort development. Zoning maps show that numerous home - sites in the Black Butte development fall within the one- half mile impact area. This site has been operated previously as a borrow area for construction of Black Butte Ranch and since then by the ranch for its own use. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Wildlife habitat. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer use range with a high frequency of use. Testimony of Black Butte Ranch also established that deer and other wildlife use the area. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 l01 - 1427 2. Scenic and open space values. Although the staff report indicates that the site has scenic value, the site is not within an LM or any other zone indicating special scenic values. Neither is the site along any major arterial in the County's transportation plan. The site is near a meadow area zoned OS&C; however, there was no testimony that the mine would have any affect on the scenic qualities of that area. Conse- quently, the scenic qualities of the site do not constitute a natural resource that could be conflicting with the aggregate resource. 3. Historical. The old Santiam Wagon Road runs close by this site. This road is listed as a historical resour- ce on the County's comprehensive plan. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Impacts on deer and other wildlife would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. Due to intermittent use of this site, such impacts would not be severe. (2) It appears that the Old Santiam Wagon Road runs through the middle of the site. Conflicts with this historical site would come from excavation and consequent destruc- tion of a portion of the historic wagon road. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 I()I 1428 At the site There would be no conflicts at the site given that the site is zoned for surface mining. Surrounding zones (RR -10, F-2, OS&C) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. All uses in the surrounding zones would be conflicting, except utility uses, other mining uses, forest product processing uses, landfills, personal use landing strips and race tracks. Existing residential development to the southeast in the Black Butte development could be adversely affected by noise. Black Butte residents testified that the noise from previous operations at site 316 to the northwest were disruptive, even as far away as 1500 feet. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. During the leaving from this site, neighbors testified that previous operations at a site northwest of Black Butte Ranch created bothersome dust conditions. Similar conditions would most likely be expected in this case. One nearby resident testified that his wife suffered from an allergy to dust and that dust from the mine would be a health hazard to her. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods and community centers. Access to this site would be gained through the National Forest or through the Black Butte develop- ment. Presumably, the Black Butte Homeowner's Associa- tion could preclude any truck traffic to and from the any mining operation from using the development's roadways. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 a �w 10-I - 14Z9 There was evidence presented that this site would be visible from existing homes in the area. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to the Black Butte resort, which is a major resort area in the County. Nothing in the record suggests that the site can be seen from the Black Butte development. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined and that mining activity at the site is not continuous. With respect to the historical wagon road, excavation that would impact the road, there 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 i.01 - 14:30 would be negative social consequences in that a link to the past would be lost. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat. Surface mining activ- ities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views of the Deschutes River corridor would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topo- graphy. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. The area is natural in appearance, except for the excavated area and is vegetated with ponderosa pine and bitterbrush. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to Highway 20 and would likely only be used in nearby Highway 20 construction jobs. The Board finds generally that preservation of this site would have the effect of reducing overall energy consumption by reducing the distance that aggregate materials would have to be hauled to highway jobs. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 'i o t - 14:31 The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located close to Highway 20 and could be used for aggregate material on such jobs at a savings in cost over material that would have to be hauled from further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 if t 14:32 County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of wildlife values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources are often limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development and cannot be replaced. The environmental consequences in this case would be mitigated by the intermittent use of the site. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the natural resources are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the Deschutes County economy. (b) Considering the quantity, quality, and location of this site close to the Highway 20 area market and the cost of transporting aggregate, this is an important aggre- gate deposit. (c) This site is an existing mining site. (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development and cannot be replaced. (e) Historical resources such as the Santiam wagon road are unique and irreplaceable. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 i0l -, 1433 protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. There was no specific testimony on this site concerning property values. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to scenic sites such as the Deschutes River scenic waterway. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 io.i ^ 14:34 impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. These impacts were testified to by the neighbors of the existing sites. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. At 7 million cubic yards, this site is amongst the largest in the County. In addition, there is the further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of aggregate that are located close to their points of use. In this 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 1101 _- 1435 case, the resource is well located for use on Highway 20 construction projects. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate materials are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The large size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 10.E - 143G (c) The site is located close to Highway 20 where it would be used in highway construction projects. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) Existing residential use at the Black Butte Ranch development is a well established residential and resort community occupied by full or part time resi- dents. That development has been carefully planned to provide recreational and scenic amenities to its residents. Individuals purchasing property in that development have done so with economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. (e) Resort areas such as Black Butte resort are important to the Deschutes County economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. It is likely that all potential conflicting uses in the Black Butte development would be protected by the location of existing homes in that development. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the exist- ing SM zoning will be maintained, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development. (b) Noise impacts shall be mitigated by buffering and screening. (c) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekdays. No operations shall be allowed on weekends and holidays. (d) Processing shall be limited to 45 days in any one year, to be negotiated with Deschutes County in the site plan process in consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 01 - 1437 (e) The conditions set forth in the August 10, 1989, letter of ODFW shall be adhered to. (f) Extraction at the site shall be limited to five acres at a time with on-going incremental reclamation (subject to DOGAMI review and approval). (g) Mining operations, siting of equipment, and trucking of product shall be conducted in such a manner that applicable DEQ standards are met and minimizes noise and dust. (h) Operations at the site shall be limited to supplying material to major highway construction jobs on Highway 20 only. (i) A cultural resources survey relating to the Santiam wagon road will be conducted as part of the site plan review and impacts on the roads shall be minimal. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site sill be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact, the restrictions on winter processing, the hours of operation, the 5 -acre limit on excavation, and the reclamation plan conditions. The Board finds that the screening and buffering provisions of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014, meet the ESEE screening and buffering requirements. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting mineral and aggregate resources, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 i0l - 1438 such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise stan- dards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 i0l :1439 other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. The concerns of Black Butte residents have specifically been taken into account by limiting the number of days in any one year that processing can occur, by specifying limited hours of operation, and by specifying that processing equipment shall be established in areas that will minimize noise from processing. In any event mining operations are required to meet DEQ noise standards. Finally, use at the site has been limited to use a source of materials for highway construc- tion and maintenance jobs and shall not be used for general commercial purposes. 15 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 .L 0 -1 - 1440 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #315 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. WILLIAMETTE IND. INFORMATION SHEET 3. SAME AS ABOVE #2 4. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION/MAP SHEET 5. SAME AS #4 6. SAME AS #4 7. DESCHUTES COUNTY MAP 8. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 9. COPY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY MAP 10. AERIAL MAP 11. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 5/29/87 12. LETTER DATED 9/2/86 FROM DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL IND. 13. LETTER DATED 8/6/87 FROM DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL IND. 14. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/3/85 15. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/4/84 16. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 11/1/84 17. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/16/83 18. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 5/24/84 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/26/82 20. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 7/22/82 21. PIT INFORMATION SHEET 1 fi0l 1441 22. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 9/24/81 23. PIT INFORMATION SHEET 24. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/16/81 25. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/7/80 26. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 6/9/80 27. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/19/77 28. SURFACE MINING PERMIT APPLICATION 29. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 2/17/77 30. NOTIFICATION MAPS 31. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 32. MYLAR OF TOPO. 33. P.C. RECOMMENDATION 34. ADDENDUM 35. LETTER FROM ODFW 8/21/89 36. LETTER FROM ALTA BRADY 8/24/89 37. LETTER FROM FRANK HUSKIN 8/25/89 38. LETTER FROM STEPHEN SWERTING 8/13/89 39. LETTER FROM STARR RUD 8/15/89 40. LETTER FROM A.W. STRUYRENBERG 8/17/89 41. LETTER FROM T. KRUSE 8/18/89 42. LETTER FROM A.W. STRUYRENBERG 8/19/89 43. LETTER FROM SPRANG 8/21/89 44. LETTER FROM G. KNECHTIL 8/21/89 45. LETTER FROM STARR RUD 8/22/89 t: -46. LETTER FROM DON RING 8/7/89 47. DOyG/jAMIff�}PERMIT ISSUED 5/4/89 ( lu ��.•i _ r :rK �, .tYE, .• ,,.i: 2,� 0V` C: t 0l - 1442 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 316 Site Number 316, occupying tax lot 200, in Township 14 South, Range 9 E.W.M., Section 5, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 316 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located about one mile off Highway 20 northwest of Black Butte Ranch. The site is owned by Willamette Industries and is under least to Crown Pacific and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 and RR -10. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser hired by the County describing the site and its sur- roundings was entered into the record at that time. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 i.01 - 1443 Testimony was also received from a representative of the Black Butte Ranch Homeowner's Association and four neighboring property owners in the Black Butte Ranch Development. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 7 million cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 316 is an existing gravel mine located roughly one mile south of Highway 20 just northwest of Black Butte Ranch. The site is natural forest land, except where there has been excavation. The forest in the area is predominately ponderosa pine forest. The site is located within the Deschutes National Forest and has a number of existing gravel pits and in an active logging area. Directly to the east and south of the site is Deschutes National Forest Land. To the west of the site is privately held forest land. Diagonally to the south, within 1500 feet, is the northwest corner of the Black Butte Ranch resort development. Zoning maps show that numerous home - sites in the Black Butte development fall within the one- half mile impact area. This site has been operated previously as a borrow area for construction of neighboring logging access roads. In approximately 1985, the site was used in connection with a highway construction job. There was conflicting testimony as to whether the site was excavated during that time or whether a forest service pit to the south was the source of that material. All agreed that the site was at least used for processing of excavated material during that time. There has been no use of the site since that time. There was testimony that during the 1985 construction job involving the site, the noise, dust and traffic resulting from activities at the site adversely affected the quality of life for the residents in the area. There was no testi- mony about whether or not complaints had been made to DEQ to abate possible noise violations. The Forest Service pit to the south is limited to extraction of 10,000 cubic yards per year, unless an environmental assessment is performed. The owner of this site anticipates that it would be used only occasionally due to its location, but expects that any contractor doing a job in the area would be interested in the site. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 �1 1444 3. Conflicts analvsis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Wildlife habitat. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer use range with a high frequency of use. 2. Scenic. Although the staff report indicates that the site has scenic value, the site is not adjacent to the Highway 20 corridor LM zoning, the LM zoning along Highway 20 specifically leaves this property out. 3. Historical. Although the staff report mentions that the old Santiam Road runs close by this site, this appears to have been in error. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use of the area. Due to intermittent use of this site, such impacts would not be severe. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site There would be no conflicts at the site given that the site is zoned for surface mining. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 10.1 - 1445 Surrounding zones (RR -10, F-2) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. All uses in the surrounding zones would be conflicting, except utility uses, other mining uses, forest product processing uses, landfills, personal use landing strips and race tracks. Existing residential development to the southeast in the Black Butte development could be adversely affected by noise. Area residents testified that the noise from previous operations at the site were disruptive, to even as far away as 1500 feet. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. During the hearing on this site, neighbors testified that current operations create bothersome dust condi- tions. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods and community centers. Access to this site is off Highway 20 and not through the Black Butte development. There was no specific testimony that traffic adversely impacted the residents of the development. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. There was no evidence presented that this site is visible from existing homes in the area. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 101 -, 144G in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to the Black Butte resort, which is a major resort area in the County. Nothing in the record suggests that the site can be seen from the Black Butte development, however. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined and that mining activity at the site is not continuous. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat. Surface mining activ- ities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views of the Deschutes River corridor would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topo- graphy. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. The area is natural in appearance, except for the excavated area and is vegetated with ponderosa pine and bitterbrush. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to Highway 20 and would likely only be used in nearby Highway 20 construction jobs. The Board finds generally that preservation of this site would have the effect of reducing overall energy consumption by reducing the distance that aggregate materials would have to be hauled to highway jobs. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 ( 1448 amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located close to Highway 20 and could be used for aggregate material on such jobs at a savings in cost over material that would have to be hauled from further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of wildlife values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources are often limited by 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 [ "AG L0.1 - 1449 locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development and cannot be replaced. The environmental consequences in this case would be mitigated by the intermittent use of the site. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the aggregate resource and the conflicting Goal 5 resources are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the Deschutes County economy. (b) Considering the quantity, quality, and location of this site close to the Highway 20 corridor and the cost of transporting aggregate, this is an important aggregate deposit. At 7 million cubic yards, this is one of the largest deposits in the County. (c) This site is an existing mining site. (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development and cannot be replaced. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 ?[ 1450 of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. There was no specific testimony on this site concerning property values. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to resort sites such as this. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. These impacts were testified to by the neighbors of the existing sites. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 lQ",i - °1451 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. At 7 million cubic yards, this site is amongst the largest in the County. In addition, there is the further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of aggregate that are located close to their points of use. In this case, the resource is well located for use on Highway 20 construction projects. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 f '1452 habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate materials are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The large size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. (c) The site is located close to Highway 20 where it would be used in highway construction projects. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) Existing residential use at the Black Butte Ranch development is a well established residential and resort community occupied by full or part time resi- dents. That development has been carefully planned to provide recreational and scenic amenities to its residents. Individuals purchasing property in that development have done so with economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. (e) Resort areas such as Black Butte resort are important to the Deschutes County economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 -14x3 existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. It is likely that all potential conflicting uses in the Black Butte development would be protected by the location of existing homes in that development. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the exist- ing SM zoning will be maintained, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development. (b) Noise impacts shall be mitigated by buffering and screening. (c) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekdays. No operations shall be allowed on weekends and holidays. (d) Processing shall be limited to 45 days in any one year, to be negotiated with Deschutes County in the site plan process in consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). (e) The conditions set forth in the August 10, 1989, letter of ODFW shall be adhered to. (f) Extraction at the site shall be limited to five acres at a time with on-going incremental reclamation (subject to DOGAMI review and approval). (g) Mining operations, siting of equipment, and trucking of product shall be conducted in such a manner that applicable DEQ standards are met and minimizes noise and dust. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site sill be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 i.1-1 - 1 455 not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise stan- dards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. The concerns of Black Butte residents have specifically been taken into account by limiting the number of days that processing can occur, by specifying limited hours of opera- tion, and by specifying that processing equipment shall be established in areas that will minimize noise from process- ing. In any event mining operations are required to meet DEQ noise standards. 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 r% -:vi 1 J` TABLE OF CONTENTS �j'i ISUIRFACIEE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Williamette Ind. information sheet 3 - Diamond International Information/Map sheet 4 - Same as above #3 6 - Report of On -Site Inspection x -15-S5 S pR�,� �,ws Cowti�ezSfa. ,oaf: 9- myl d�-,(xqraph,(CA map ip -`darn n. c� Comm � Ss�o �n �2C.Om mex�cla#io �1 3 A rl eC6J-2-1-V14 &� ?-Zz -i0 145 i. 01 - 1-4 5 7 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 317 Site Number 317, occupying tax lot 1300 in Township 14 South, Range 9 E.W.M., Section 17, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 317 comprises approximately 10 acres and is located on Five -Mile Butte, approximately one mile southwest of Black Butte Ranch. The site is owned by Willamette Industries is zoned F-2. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 with Black Butte Ranch, zoned RR -10, located approximately on mile from the site. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the econo- mic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the con- flicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding area was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 Testimony was also received from several person residing in Black Butte Ranch. Testimony centered around the proximity to Black Butte Ranch and the relatively low value of cinders. There is also noted that this site has been inactive for at least 15 years. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 1,200,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is on the south side of Five -Mile Butte and accesses off of Forest Service Road 144. Surrounding land uses includes forest land and Black Butte Ranch one mile to the northeast. There is no information in the file which contradicts the opponent's testimony that the site has been inactive for 15 years. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Scenic values. The F-2 zone provides a certain level of protection of scenic values. Five -Mile Butte is a visible landform from the surrounding area. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust from would most likely be visible from surrounding roads, including Santiam Highway (Highway 20) and the McKenzie Highway (Highway 242). The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 10 -1 - 1459 human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-2 and RR -10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 and RR -10 zones would include: (1) At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SMR zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture or forestry may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated por- tions of the site. Uses in the RR -10 zone would also be conflicting in this regard, except for farms uses on unexcavated portions of the site. (2) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and off-road vehicle tracks. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly on residential uses. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The public testimony included testimony that the subject was in the area with quiet ambient noise levels which could create impacts further than the one-half mile impact area being considered by the County. Much of the testimony involved consideration of three sites (Sites 315, 316 and 317). The testimony also noted that the staff report 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 including a comment that the area was blocked by snow and had not been visited by the staff. These letter site primarily noise, dust and visual impacts. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts, the conflicting uses in the zone are as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and visually disturb the landscape. Such impacts would adversely affect the attri- butes that caused the residents of adjacent rural reside- ntial properties to locate there. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued or increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 JUI -, 1461 In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. There is some degree of need in the County for cinders and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that states that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads any longer. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 i0l - 1462 finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggre- gate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valu- able sand and gravel resource. 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the conflicting natural resources are more important than the cinder resource based on the following facts: (a) Failure to zone this site will not adversely affect the supply of cinders in the county; (b) There are other cinder sources in the County that the County is protecting that can supply cinders for road maintenance needs; (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (d) The scenic views from the surrounding area of the butte are significant enough to warrant consideration. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 1011 - 1463 Therefore, the Board finds that the conflicting natural resources should be protected and the cinder resource should not be. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16- 010(2) the conflicting resources should be protected fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area, depending upon the level of use. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity could be high in this case due to the proximity to Black Butte Ranch and the elevated nature of the butte. Public testimony from nearby property owners illuminated concerns about the noise impacts of surface mining and its impact on the scenery surrounding their properties. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby logging roads would be short. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The protection of conflicting land uses could have the effect of causing higher transportation costs to the extent that denial of mining approval would cause cinders to be hauled to their point of use from more remote sites. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, there is an added cost of .22 per ton mile from extraction sites to the point of use. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 i 01 -, 1465 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by develop- ment where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Mineral Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that relative to one another the conflicting uses are more important than the cinder resource. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses; Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will protect fully the conflicting uses at and surround- ing the site. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 11 W io-1 m 146G PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting mineral resources, as the Board finds that there has never been a concern about the adequacy of cinder availability in the County and that it has chosen to zone and protect 24 cinder sites representing 21,830,000 cubic yards of cinders. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 w TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #317 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. WILIAMETTE IND. INFORMATION SHEET 3. SAME AS ABOVE #2 4. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION/MAP SHEET 5. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 6. PIT INFORMATION SHEET 7. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION/MAP SHEET S. SAME AS #7 9. DESCHUTES COUNTY MAP 10. NOTIFICATION MAP 11. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 12. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 13. LETTER OF OPPOSITION FROM BLACK BUTTE RANCH 14. SAME AS ABOVE 15. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 16. STAFF REPORT 17. LETTER FROM DIANNE LATHEN 18. LETTER FROM KAREN SWANSON 19. LETTER FROM D. KEITH SWANSON 20. LETTER FROM NEIL LATHEN 21. LETTER FROM HARRY & SUE SPRANG ZZ, �toard 0Com( iJS;o% ¢ V-eCgrig ( %r)sicS z 3 ` mrd 0 Comrri�ssioner5 cleuslon m'ttjLA:hs 1467 1468 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 322 Site Number 322, occupying a portion of tax lot 1801 in Township 14, Range 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989 . On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 322 comprises approximately 320 acres and is located east of the Deschutes River just nortn of Lower Bridge west of Terrebonne. The site is owned by Fred and Judy Gunzner and is zoned EFU 80 and FP and is located within -a Federal Wild and Scenic River corridor and a State Scenic Waterway. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-80. The surrounding land is in a mixture of public and private ownership. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report commis - 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 L0,1 - 1469 sioned by the County by an appraiser describing the property and the surrounding area was entered into the record at the hearing. In addition, testimony was received from the Coalition for the Deschutes, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the owner. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 1.5 million cubic yards of mixed quality aggregate. In addition, the site has 500,000 cubic yards of diatomite. The diatomite is deposited underneath the gravel deposit. The conflicts and ESEE analysis is done largely on the basis of mining the aggregate, since that is the overlying deposi- t. Mining of the diatomite would add additional benefits to mining the site, while adding few negative consequences beyond those suffered due to the aggregate mining operation. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located on the east bank of the Deschutes River just downstream of Lower Bridge. Tax lot 1801 encompasses the banks of the Deschutes River, and a plateau area back from the river 80 feet above the river. The property consists of a working farm. Portions of the property are irrigated, with the remainder subject to graz- ing. A 5 -acre portion of the property on the plateau is currently subject to aggregate mining. The property is otherwise undeveloped. There is substantial open area with no residential develop- ment to the north and east. To the south and southeast, the primary development is mining activity. One subdivision has been approved to the southeast, but no residences have been constructed there. To the west across the river are addi- tional active mining operations. Mining has historically occurred in the Lower Bridge area. The aggregate resource appears to be located on the plateau, as that is where the existing mining occurs and that is where the owner wishes to mine. Conflicts at the site will be analyzed in that context. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Natural Resources. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 1. Wildlife. The Department identified this site for frequency of use. There raptor use. 1470 of Fish and Wildlife has deer winter range, with medium is also medium sensitive 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's location adjacent to Lower Bridge Road, an arterial on the County's transportation map requires protection of scenic values along that major road. Views from the road including views of the High Cascades and Smith Rocks to the West. 3. Riparian area and Fish resources. The County com- prehensive plan lists riparian areas on the Deschutes River as being an important riparian zone. In addition the plan indicates the presence of numerous fish species. ODF&W has identified this area as being good for wild rainbow trout and brown trout fisheries. 4. State Scenic Waterway/Federal Wild and Scenic River. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River has been designated as a "scenic" river segment in the federal Wild and Scenic River system. The segment has also been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Designation by State and Federal governments includes a 1/4 mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that a portion of the site falls within the scenic waterway and wild and scenic corridor. The Deschutes River was designated a federal wild and scenic river in this section due to the outstanding scenic, fishery, vegetative, and historical/cultural resources in the area. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County, noting that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 5. Cultural and Historic Sites. Although the staff report indicates the possible existence of an old historic wagon road at the site, nothing in the record substan- tiates this fact. In addition, the Deschutes Coun- ty/City of Bend Deschutes River Study (River Study), which inventoried historic and cultural site in the Deschutes Canyon, including this site, indicates that no historic or cultural resources were found at this site. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 10 -1 - 1471 Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site (especially in sites such as this near riparian areas). The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. (3) Fish resources would be impacted by increased turbidity and sedimentation to the extent surface water runoff from the site entered the river. (4) Impacts on the Deschutes Wild and Scenic River cor- ridor/State Scenic Waterway would include visual impacts from surface and vegetation disturbance within the to the extent such impacts were visible from inside the canyon) and possible water quality degradation. The state scenic waterway law allows for mining opera- tions in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks Department regulation. Mining is not precluded on private lands by federal designation. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and streambed, and loss of vegetation and riparian habitat associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 10.1 - 1472 Land uses on the EFU-80 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Because of the climate, forest uses are not likely to occur. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the EFU-80 zone would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. The owner in this case has indicated that the mining activity should not disrupt his farming operations on adjoining lands. (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and (4) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. However, due to the large lot sizes in the area, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area only livestock grazing presently occurs. It is not Possible to predict what the potential is of such uses occurring. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, riparian areas, fish resources, and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling on Lower Bridge Road who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on fish and wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mor- tality rate for the area's wildlife. Excavation in or near the River would destroy riparian areas and fish habitat and degrade water quality. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 101 - 1474 The Board finds that if mining were limited to the plateau impacts on riparian, fish, and scenic resources in the canyon would be avoided. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located within 5 miles of Highway 97 to the east and that the site would accordingly be well situated as a source for materials in any ongoing maintenance or construction of that highway. The Board finds that there are no other significant sources of aggre- gate in the Northern part of the County closer to the Highway 97 area as this. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites con- venient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 if M "14.15 result in increased construction costs in the area. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the Coun- ty's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveabil- ity and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 01., �; !.()I ^-14*1G costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the economy of Deschutes County. (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County; at 1.5 million cubic yards, this site is among the largest aggregate sites on the inventory. (c) This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway 97 construction jobs. (d) The site is currently being used for surface mining. (e) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (f) The Deschutes River and its corridor is an important natural features in the County, as has been demonstrat- ed at this site by its state and federal designation for Scenic Waterway status. (g) Preserving the Deschutes River is important to the burgeoning recreational economy of the County. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 Therefore, the Board finds and the conflicting natural Accordingly the Board finds protection of the aggregate that both the aggregate resource resources should be protected. that under OAR 660-16-010(3) resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations; in this case, the owner has indicated that that would not be a problem. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of preclud- ing or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 43:'r's eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resour- ces for upkeep and improvement of Highway 97 in the northern part of the County would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aqqreqate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to develop- ment of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 01 - 1480 Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses at and surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on -other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Mining operations and activity, including placement and operation of processing equipment and operation of heavy equipment to extract and transport mineral and aggregate shall be consistent with DEQ standards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The restrictions and conditions set forth by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in its letter of August 10, 1989 identifying this site as a deer winter range site, shall be applied to the site, including the provision that processing and blasting be limited between the period of December 1 through April 30 of each year. (e) A 100 -foot setback shall be maintained from the rimrock so as to hide the mining activity from view when viewed from the middle of the river. (f) Extraction shall be limited to 5 acres at a time, with ongoing incremental reclamation (subject to DOGAMI review and approval). The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE N0. 322 i 0l ^' 1 481 Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and the 100 -foot setback from the rimrock above the river. The Board further finds that the winter limitations on processing will offer protection for deer. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. A legal description of the area to be zoned is set forth as Exhibit "B." The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and other- wise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 i(J)I - 1482 (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities, and if a crusher is allowed at the site, such uses must demonst- rate that they will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 15 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 ExH�Bir A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #322 +r� ' 14 8 3 1. LETTER FROM DAVID M. JAQUA DATED 6/10/88 2. LETTER FROM DAVID M. JAQUA DATED 6/2/88 3. LETTER FROM FRED GUNZNER DATED 5/27/88 4. LETTER FROM DAVID M. JAQUA DATED 2/3/88 5. LETTER FROM DAVID M. JAQUA DATED 11/5/87 6. APPLICANT'S REPORT & PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 7. ESEE ANALYSIS 8. NOTIFICATION MAPS 9. STAFF REPORT 10. LETTER FROM FRED GUMYNER DATED 2/16/87 11. LETTER FROM DAVID JAQUA DATED 9/30/88 12. LETTER FROM GARY LYNCH DATED 10/18/88 13. RECLAMATION PERMIT DATED 10/20/88 14. ZONING MAP 15. LETTER FROM DAVID JAQUA DATED 12/8/88 16. LETTER FROM FRANK SCHNITZER 2/9/89 17. INVENTORY SHEET 18. MAP OF PARCEL 19. FILE ZC-88-1 20. REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION 8/8/89 21. MYLAR MAP 0 # (,a ^ 1484 22. LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 23. LETTER DAVID JAQUA 8/18/89 24. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 7-s. l ko-4-ev bm m ©Df:z,w a- !o -$9 a Lo• ��nr��rlci Gomm %6n;ion r'2cDma-x nda�i o-& 0'1''1 • �oact� c� Comm��S�ot�e-r5 h2�1�t� m�nu�cs ob rnx n.L.:-4 .L C • -D()6 Aran ( � ab '� n � d t) -.Z -v 2 _ ` "1 POVE E & ASSOCIATES—LANDSURVEYORS UVN � SURVEYORS 10-1 -1485 PARTNEFISHIP I.D. #93-0738184 P.O. BOX 131 •OFFICE 354 S.W. 7th . REDMOND, OREGON 97756 • (503) 548-6778 -- • Z=ip°:t3&L`+1'i��rs7 ----�1 C icr�1' R. POVL"1 Description `___.-_1852 FRED GUNZNER Sections 9, 10, 15 and 16 T.14S.,R.12E.W.M. MINING ZONE CHANGE OF THE BRICE PLACE lZ _/M9 Descriptiion of a parcel of land zoned for mining situate in a portion Sections;9, 10, 15 and 16 of T.14S.,R.12E.W.M., Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 15 of T.14S.,R.12E.W.M., the Initial Point; thence east along the north line of said Section 1.5 approximately 660 feet to 'the east line of the west half of the NWJ* of the NW4 (W�WjNWIW) of said Section and the true POINT OF BEGINNING; thence northeast approximately 1866 feet to the southeast corner of the west) half of the NE34 of the SW3g (W�NE4SWIX) of said Section 10; thence north along the east Line of said WhNEhSWh approximately 1320 feet to (the north lineof the NWS (NW'() of said section 10; thence west along said north line approximately 1900 feet to the brink of the east canyon rim of the Deschutes River;. thence southwest along said brink approximately 1800 feet to the west line of the east half of the SE)t (EhSEh) of said Section 9; thence south along said west line approximately 1400 feet to the southwes corner of said EhSE4; thence s utheast approximately 1700 feet to the -intersection or the north ri ht -of -way (R/W) of Lower Bridge way, a County Road and the line com on to said Sections 1.5 and 16; thence n�rtheast along said R/W being 30.00 feet from the centerline of said roa approximately 720 feet to said east line of the WhNW4NW1t of said ection 15; thence n rth along said east line approximately 800 feet.to the POINT OF BEGIN ING. Same containing approximately 115 land acres. 1 OF 1 DESCRIPTION 11, n .--_�+--!''',- TTi� --��'-'- ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 324 Site Number 324, occupying a portion of tax lot 702 in Township 14 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 19, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 324 comprises approximately 59.2 acres and is located at Lower Bridge Farm three miles west of the Deschutes River in the Terrebonne area. The site is owned by the Depart- ment of Veteran's Affairs and is currently zoned SMR. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-80 and WA. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, an appraiser made a report of condition of the site and the surrounding area, that was entered into the record along with the staff report. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 I 01 1487 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 490,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located at Lower Bridge Farm. The site is south of Lower Bridge Road roughly three miles west of the Deschutes River in the Terrebonne area. The site area is located along the flanks of Deep Canyon. A majority of the site is currently irrigated farm land. The non -crop areas along the canyon are naturally vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. The site is located along the edge and in Deep Canyon. At this point, the canyon is fairly shallow. The areas of the site which are not farmed are naturally vegetated. There are some barns and residences on the site, but none are in the local area of the identified gravel reserve. Deep Canyon is a dry creek bed. A 1979 air photo indicates that there is an irrigation reservoir in the canyon, just east of the site. The site is located in an area of large farms. There are a few residences within one-half mile of the site, but the area is primarily farm and natural grazing land. The aggregate reserve area is not highly visible from Lower Bridge Road. There is one farm residence to the east of the site, one north and one group of buildings to the west. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The site's zoning with a wildlife area combining zone indicates that the area is important habitat for big game such as deer. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. 2. Although the staff report stated that open space and scenic values were present, there is no LM zoning or OS&C zoning to support such values. The Board finds that wildlife habitat resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff analysis, 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-80 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that some residential and farm uses included in the list of conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 80 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. The impacts would be small, given that few people live in the area and the site is not visible from any major road. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and open space and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 i 0 1 -- 1489 cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 to -L - 1490 amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the County is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are .22 cents per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transportation costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Redmond market area and that consequently, preservation of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower aggregate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude or limit mining at the site. The 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 I Q I - 1491 noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. There- fore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources in close proximity to market areas. Deer habitat is contin- ually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 1492 appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. This site is within 15 miles of the Redmond market area, which reduces the expenditure of hauling to local markets. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 6 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 Cad -a 1493 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development, utility uses, feed lot uses, personal landing strips, forest product processing uses and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards or sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites within urban market areas would create greater energy consumption because necessary mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such develop- ment. 21. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County, its size and quality and its location within the Redmond market area. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they repre- sent commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. With that commitment comes economic, quality of life and health and safety expecta- tions. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The Board finds that there is sufficient available land in the County to accommodate displaced uses, if any. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Conditions set forth by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in their letter of August 10, 1989, shall be applied to this site; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 of 1495 (e) The area subject to extraction shall be limited to five acres at a time, with on-going incremental reclamation; and (f) Mining operations, including placement of processing equipment and use of trucks to extract and transport materials, shall be carried out in compliance with applicable DEQ noise and dust standards. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise. The Board further finds that the winter processing limita- tions will offer protection for deer. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter processing limitations will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 149 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities, and within one-quarter mile to storage or processing facilities only if the applicant for such a use can demonstrate that the establishment of such use will not cause a future surface mine at the site to violate applicable noise and dust standards. (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 93 EXKlBiT- ,n TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #324 1497 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. AERIAL MAP 3. MAP 4. MAP 5. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP 6. SITE MAP OF GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE 7. VICINITY MAP 8. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 9. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 10. FINDINGS & DECISION 11. DESCHUTES COUNTY STAFF REPORT DATED 4/27/82 12. DESCHUTES COUNTY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 13. LETTER FROM MICHAEL D. RACINE DATED 3/7/82 14. LETTER FROM MICHAEL D. RACINE DATED 3/7/82 15. LETTER FROM WAYNE R. SCHOBER DATED 1/26/82 16. LETTER FROM WAYNE R. SCHOBER DATED 1/26/82 17. LETTER FROM DENNIS MCPHEETERS DATED 1/13/82 18. DESCHUTES COUNTY STAFF REPORT DATED 12/22/81 19. LETTER TO AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT SERVICES DATED 12/10/81 20. LETTER FROM GEORGE HAMLIN DATED 12/2/81 21. COPY OF ABOVE LETTER IN #20 1 101 �" 1498 22. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 23. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 24. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 25. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 26. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 27. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 28. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 29. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 30. DESCHUTES COUNTY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 31. DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 32. DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 33. FILE SHEET 34. LETTER FROM ELLIOT SEGALL DATED 10/1/81 35. STATEMENT SHEET FROM ENGIN ASSOCIATES 36. COPY OF TABLE #1 37. EXHIBIT C TABLE 38. MAILING LIST FOR SUBDIVISION TRANSMITTALS - SITE PLAN TRANSMITTALS 39. LOOK UPS WITH ATTACHED ADDRESSES 40. EXHIBIT A FROM CENTURY WEST ENGINEERING CORPORATION 41. APPRAISERS COMMENTS, STAFF REPORT & PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 42. NOTIFICATION MAPS 43. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 44. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 4,01 - 1499 s SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Aerial Map 3 -Map 4 - Map 5 - Geological Survey Map 6 - Site Map of Geologic Reconnaissance 7 --Vicinity Map 8 - Legal Description 9 - Questionnaire sheet 10 - Findings & Decision 11 - Deschutes County Staff Report dated 4/27/82 12 - Deschutes County Notice of Public Hearing 13 - Letter from Michael D. Racine dated 3/7/82 14 - Letter from Michael D. Racine dated 3/7/82 15 - Letter from Wayne R. Schober dated 1/26/82 16 - Letter from Wayne R. Schober dated 1/26/82 17 - Letter from Dennis McPheeters dated 1/13/82 18 - Deschutes County Staff report dated 12/22/81 19 - Letter to Agricultural Investment Services dated 12/10/81 20 - Letter from George Hamlin dated 12/2/81 21 - Copy of above letter in =20 22 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 23 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 24 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 25 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 26 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 27 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 28 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 29 - Deschutes County Plan Amendment Application 30 - Deschutes County Notice of Public Hearing TABLE OF CONTENTS SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: PAGE 2) -1500 31 - Deschutes County Zone Change Application 32 - Deschutes County Zone Change Application 33 - File sheet 34 - Letter from Elliot Segall dated 10/1/81 35 - Statement sheet from Engin Associates 36 - Copy of Table #1 37 - Exhibit C table 38 - Mailing list for Subdivision Transmittals - Sit Plan Transmittals 39 - Look Ups with attached addresses 40 - Exhibit A from Century West Engineering Corporation L 1 4 42. t 415 .. 101 -^ 1501 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 326 Site Number 326, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies those preliminary decisions. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 326, occupying tax lot 300 in Township 14 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 36, comprises approximately 200 acres and is located on the southwest bank of the Deschutes River just downstream from the bridge at Tetherow Crossing. The site is owned by U.S. National Bank as trustee for the Phillip Dahl estate and is currently zoned SM and LM. Adjacent zoning is EFU- 40, RR -10 and MUA-10. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report from an appraiser hired by the County to describe the site and its surroundings was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 J, All 1502 During the ESEE hearings on these sites, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Parks Division of the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Coalition for the Deschutes, a number of neighbors opposed to mining at the site and a number of persons testifying by joint letter in favor of mining at the site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that this site has 1.5 million cubic yards of good quality sand and gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is bisected by Tetherow Road. Access to the site from the north is on Tetherow Road off of Hemholtz Road. From the south, access is off Tullar Road from the Redmond -Sisters Highway. Site 326 borders the Deschutes River just southwest of the Tetherow Bridge. The site is on two levels of which both are fairly level. The lower level is in the river floodplain just a few feet higher than the river itself. The upper level, which is roughly two-thirds of the site, is higher on a small pla- teau. There were three small existing gravel pits noted on the site. One is near the river, just west of Tetherow Road after crossing the river. The second pit area is currently used as a motorcycle track and is south of the road at the top of the rise. The lower level of the site has been cleared and is currently overgrown with grasses and sage- brush. The Deschutes River forms part of the northern border of the site. The river is within 250 feet of the lower level. The upper area of the site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. Directly east of the lower level is a newer home on top of a small rise which has mountain views over the subject site. To the northeast on the other side of the river is the historical Tetherow House which is within view of the site and on the northern access road. This site is on County land and provides public access to the river. To the south and west is vacant farm and range land. Within one-half mile of the site is more vacant land to the south and west. To the north is Tetherow Crossing subdivision and more of the Deschutes River. To the east of the site is more of the river and residential acreage properties. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 f � 9 Hyl 15 0 3 Resources 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, ODFW has identified this area as having significant habitat for wild rainbow and brown trout. The resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan lists the Deschutes River as having Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout. The County Comprehensive Plan calls for the County to support efforts by ODFW to manage appro- priate reaches of rivers and streams for wild trout habitat. During the ESEE hearings, neighborhood resi- dents spoke to excellent fishing for brown trout in the area. 2. Open space and scenic values. The County Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Zoning ordinance includes areas along the Deschutes River in the LM zone, which would protect scenic values 200 feet back from the river. This would apply primarily to the lower ripar- ian meadow on this site. 3. Riparian habitat. The resource element of the County Comprehensive Plan identifies the area along the banks of the Deschutes River as being a sensitive riparian area. Riparian habitat has value for wildlife that use it for a forage and water source. Wildlife such as deer from adjacent areas may come to the area during the nighttime hours for water. In addition, riparian areas are important habitat for fish. Site 326 includes riparian habitat along the banks of the river. The riparian area is relatively broad with extensive meadows and what from photos of the area appear to be wetlands. 4. Scenic waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River is in the State Scenic Waterway program. Such designation includes a one-quarter mile corridor on each side of the river upstream and downstream from the dam. The Board finds that this site falls entirely within the scenic waterway. State scenic waterway designation is based on a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, historic, archeological, recreational and outdoor values. It appears from information in the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River Study (River Study) that the outstanding attributes of the River in this segment would be recreational, scenic, 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 060"1 i0l '" 1504 and historic. Because of public access at the site, the river corridor has a great deal of recreational use in this area. Testimony during the ESEE hearing attested to the fact that the area is widely used for swimming, fishing and crawdad gathering. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz Study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportion of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. The scenic and recreational values of the river at this point are enhanced by the abundant wildlife visible to visitors of the site. The Board finds based upon the testimony of a neighbor to the site that there are red- tailed hawks, blue heron, turkey vultures, and ducks that make use of this site, as well as the golden eagle mentioned by ODFW. 5. Historic and cultural resources. The staff report refers to the fact that the Deschutes Canyon was a transportation corridor for Native Americans travelling through Central Oregon. The River Study identified this particular site as having cultural sites. In addition, the river study lists the entire Tetherow Crossing area as a historic site, noting that this spot was a natural ford on the Deschutes River used by Native American and early settlers. The Tetherow Bridge and Tetherow Homestead were also listed as elements of this historical crossing. Testimony during the ESEE hearing also established that the site is marked by a historical monument stating "Cascade to Ochoco's Pioneer Wagon Road 1886-1920." Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and the testimony at the ESEE hearings, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space, scenic, and recreational values would be adversely affected by the removal of additional vegeta- tion and further excavation of the surface, the presen- ce of machinery at the site, and the noise and fugitive dust associated with mining activities. There was testimony at the hearing that this area of the Deschutes Canyon is used by the public for swimming and other public uses. The Tetherow House property pro- vides public access to the river and a point of inter- est. Visitors to the site would be disturbed by the 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 o- 1505 noise and dust associated with surface mining. In addition, the truck traffic associated with surface mining at the sites would pose a danger to visitors. The access roads are very narrow dirt roads, only one car wide in many places. (2) The noise associated with surface mining would adverse- ly impact on the wildlife use of the area. Any use of the area by deer would be impacted by the noise, dust, and truck traffic, as set forth in the staff report. Besides impacting the wildlife directly, such impacts would have an indirect effect on the public's enjoyment of open space, scenic, and recreational values, due to the absence of wildlife viewing opportunities. (3) Depending on how close mining took place to the river, mining operations could adversely affect wetland, riparian habitat and fish resources through destruction of riparian vegetation, debris coming to rest in riparian zones and possible uncontrolled surface drainage, leading to increased sedimentation in the stream, further affecting fish spawning habitat and fish food sources. (4) It appears that cultural sites identified in the River Study could be impacted, if not destroyed, if surface mining were to take place on the riparian meadows adjacent to the river. Historic resources would probably not be impacted since they are not directly on the site. However, those coming to look at the his- toric sites would have their experiences marred by the noise, dust, and traffic associated with surface mining. The Board finds that fish and wildlife, riparian habitat and scenic values along the River conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat and riparian areas and scenic resour- ces, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust, increased human pre- sence, and water quality impacts as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact wildlife and their habitat. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-40, RR -10 and MUA-10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The County comprehensive plan shows that, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 10i 15OG although an allowed uses, forestry uses would not occur due to the soils at the site. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, and processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensi- tive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. The surrounding area is developed with homes overlooking the Deschutes River to the north and east. 2. The impact of dust on subdivision residents neighboring the surface mine. Dust would come from the mining operations itself and from truck traffic on the unpaved Tetherow Road. Testimony was received from one neigh- boring resident who suffers asthma expressing concern over dust. He testified that even without surface mining in the area, there are days when he must remain indoors due to dust and smoke. The Board finds that dust from surface mining operations would be a health hazard. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. This is a particular concern in this case, since the access roads to the site are narrow dirt roads. The roads are limited to a 10 -ton maximum and the Tetherow Bridge has a 15 -ton maximum. Neighbors testified and the Board believes that in many places, the roads are so narrow that oncoming traffic cannot be accommodated. If truck traffic were to leave the area to the north, it would pass right through the Tetherow House site, which serves as a public access area to the Deschutes River. 4. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. The Board finds that the site would be in view of several exist- ing homes in the area. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, most of the uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 i '04 )0-1 " 150 surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses, residential and park -type uses are the primary existing conflicting uses. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. Because of the adjacent Tetherow House site and public access to the Deschutes River, the site is likely to attract visitors. Recreation is taking increasing importance in the Deschutes County economy; therefore, the indirect economic effects of surface mining could increase over time. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on scenic, wildlife, open space and recreational values as set forth above. Because of the public uses in the canyon nearby, these impacts could be substantial. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on the fish and wildlife and sensitive riparian habitat at the site. Surface mining activities would increase noise and traffic and reduce the available cover and forage at the site. In addition, noise could cause other wildlife such as raptors to avoid the site. Wildlife would be forced to leave the area adding more competition in other habitat areas. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 f `!' 5 i0l M 1508 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Although the energy consequences could be negative here, since the site is fairly close to Highways 126 and 20, access to the site makes it a less attractive site, particu- larly if it were necessary to improve the access roads to accommodate truck traffic. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 126 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 L01 - 1509 would result in increased costs for maintenance and con- struction on Highway 126. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of riparian and fish and wildlife resources and public open space and scenic values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to the Highway 126 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances to nearby highway maintenance jobs. From this standpoint, the Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site could have negative energy consequences. This could have to be weighed against the possibility of the energy being expended to improve the access roads to the site to accom- modate trucks. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the consequences, the Board finds that the scenic, recreational, riparian and fish and wildlife resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. The facts supporting the Board's decision include the following: (a) Although this site is a large one at 1.5 million cubic yards, its preservation is not necessary, considering 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 i0l - 1510 decision made at other sites. By those decisions, the County has preserved a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. (b) The County has preserved at least 2 million cubic yards at sites 275, 322 and 461, all of which are within 10- 15 miles of this site by road and have better access to major roadways than does this site. (c) The area is one of the few areas along the Deschutes River easily accessible to the public and is heavily used by the public. The site is valued by the public for its scenic, recreational and historical resources. (d) The area at Tetherow Crossing has unique historic significance in the County due to its site as an early settler crossing and the Tetherow House. Such historic sites cannot be found anywhere else in the County. (e) The extensive meadows along the northern fringe of the site are an ecologically important resources. Fish and wildlife habitat is becoming more scarce all the time as development increases. (g) The combination of scenic, cultural, historic, recrea- tional and fish and wildlife values at this site is impressive and not found elsewhere in the County. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This could be substantial in this case due to the fact that the access roads are narrow dirt roads ill- suited to accommodating truck traffic. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by neighborhood residents, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, fugitive dust and scars to the landscape produced by the proposed surface mine. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall mixed energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. To the extent that -surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. On the other hand, access to the site is marginal due to poor roads. This could make the site less attractive to use and could also require the upgrading of the access roads which would consume energy. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 11 above. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 4 iol - 1512 can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development, could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments on the southeast side of Bend would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. The area has a number of existing homes. These homes have a high degree of natural amenities, such as scenic views, solitude, and wildlife viewing opportunities that makes it a unique rural residential location. Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting Goal 5 resources and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 44,122,000 cubic yards of aggregate material (including crushable rock), which combined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 � )i' 1 o TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #326 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 2. NOTE SHEETS I(jt , 1513 3. TETHEROW BRIDGE GRAVEL PIT INFORMATION SHEET 4. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 5. MAP 6. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 7. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION ISSUED 10/28/8 8. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION ISSUED 10/7/86 9. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION ISSUED 9/18/85 10. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION ISSUED 1/81/84 11. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION ISSUED 5/24/82 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/17/82 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION DATED 5/18/81 14. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/20/80 15. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/5/80 16. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 8/23/79 17. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/10/78 18. NOTICE FROM MID -OREGON CRUSHING CO. DATED 2/24/78 19. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FROM MID -OREGON CRUSHING CO. 20. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/13/77 21. LETTER TO MR. DENNIS KARNOPP DATED 12/14/73 22. LETTER TO MR. DENNIS KARNOPP DATED 11/29/73 r .Loll - 1514 23. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 11/27/73 24. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE 25. MAILGRAM FROM EARL L. LOYSTER 261 LETTER FROM DENNIS C. KARNOPP DATED 11/20/73 27. LETTER FROM RALPH S. MASON DATED 11/13/73 28. LETTER FROM P.H. GROTE DATED 11/20/73 29. LETTER FROM FRANK & VICTORIA BURTON DATED 3/21/78 30. LETTER FROM ANDREW J. HALL & HAZEL M. HALL DATED 3/20/73 31. CONTRACT OF SALE DATED 9/15/72 32. INVENTORY SHEET 33. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/21/88 34. GOAL 5 RULES 35. NOTIFICATION MAPS 36. APPRAISERS COMMENTS, STAFF REPORT, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 37. LETTER DESCH. CO. 6/20/88 38. PETITION 8/15/89 39. LETTER FRANK CAL 8/21/89 40. LETTER H. GRAHAM 8/21/89 41. LETTER J. HAUF 8/19/89 42. LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 43. LETTER NORM BEHRENS 8/21/89 44. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 45. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 46. LETTER FROM GREGORY PLOUFF 8/11/89 47. LETTER FROM TETHEROW CROSSING PROP. OWNERS 8/12/89 48. LETTER FROM RUSSELL GUISS 8/13/89 49. LETTER FROM JAMES PARKHURST 8/15/89 50. LETTER FROM HENRY DIAZ 8/15/8y 51. LETTER FROM BARBARA DALE (PETITION) 8/15/89 52. LETTER FROM CHASE 8/16/89 53. LETTER FROM JAN ERNST 8/17/89 PARK & REC. 54. LETTER FROM GRAYCE LARO 8/17/89 55. LETTER FROM RAY C. DRASBEK 8/18/89 5cn, q-1cl-sic, 51 , ��12nri�nG� C�mm�,s,�►v�-� rpca��,-nm.e.nc�tic;� 61�6' rci p� Co mesio, xx ss Vv�o r i rx m i n cr t, -S 5r1 I Cny),n :'s�onern. do-.." n rn,n+-a"7, 3 101 - 1516 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 330 Site Number 330, occupying tax lots 702 and 703 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 28B, came before the Board of Comkissioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 330 comprises approximately 8.5 acres and is located on the northeast flanks of Tetherow Butte, approximately one-quarter mile west of Highway 97. The site is owned by Larry Davis and is zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU- 20, LM and SMR. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 101 1517 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has approximately 50,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is an existing cinder pit which has been used intermittently in the past. There is a single-family residence and outbuildings on the subject parcel. The remiander of the site is the flank of the butte and has an natural sagebrush and juniper cover. Access is off of a private driveway from Galloway Avenue to 10th Street. The subject site is located in an area of residen- tial acreage homes and mobile homes. The area is roughly halfway between Redmond and Terrebonne. Tetherow Butte has numerous existing cinder pits on it. The subject site is highly visible from the east and north along Highway 97. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent RR -10 and EFU 40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. This site is in plain view of Highway 97. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 i,Q.t - 1518 at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 and EFU-40 zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and EFU-40 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 01 - 1519 The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling on Highway 97 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 Or 01.7 J 1520 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 v 4_8 The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 0141) i0-1 - 152'2 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 (J'I - 15 2 3 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 !,.? �,.� 10 .1 - 15 5 mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 101 - 152G The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 surface mining activities, and mile to storage and processing applicant can demonstrate that not cause a mining operation to standards; and closer than one-quarter sites only if the the proposed use will violate the siting b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 .� 158 EKtAlai`r A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #330 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. DATA SHEET REGARDING APPLICATION 4. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 5. MAP 6. MAP 7. MAP 8. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/8/88 9. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 8/26.87 10. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 8/30/87 11. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/14/84 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/15/83 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/18/83 14. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/24/82 15. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/16/81 16. AMENDMENT TO COUNTY ZONING MAP PL -15 DATED 8/14/80 17. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 6/10/80 18. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. EXHIBIT SCHEDULE WITH ATTACHED EXHIBITS 19. LETTER FROM GLEN SCHAFFER DATED 6/4/80 20. LETTER FROM E.D. ROLEY DATED 6/4/80 21. LETTER FROM GROVER & JOYCE BISSELL DATED 6/3/80 22. LOOK UP SHEET WITH ATTACHED NAMES & ADDRESSES 23. MAILING LIST FOR SITE PLAN TRANSMITTALS 24. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/27/81 25. REVISED TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR ZONE CHANGE DATED 4/28/80 26. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/17/80 27. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/13/80 28. NOTIFICATION MAPS 29. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 30. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 31. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 32. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/5/89 I * SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Cover information sheet TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 - Data sheet regarding application 4 - Questionnaire sheet 5 - Map 6 - Map 7 - Map 8 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/8/88 9 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 8/26/87 10 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 8/30/87 11 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/14/84 12 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 6/15/83 13 - Grant of Limted Exemption issued 3/18/83 14 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/24/82 15 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 6/16/81 16 - Amendment to County Zoning Map PL -15 dated 8/14/80 17 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 6/10/80 18 - Deschutes County Planning Dept. Exhibit Schedule with attached Exhibits 19 - Letter from Glen Schaffer dated 6/4/80 20 - Letter from E.D. Roley dated 6/4/80 21 - Letter from Grover & Joyce Bissell dated 6/3/80 22 - Look up sheet with attached Names & Addresses 23 - Mailing List for Site Plan Transmittals 24 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 2/27/81 25 - Revised Transmittal Letter for Zone Change dated 4/28/80 26 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/17/80 27 - 2g► - Report of On -Size inspection dated 3/13/80 r� 04i f(,j 1 3 L �� 9 Yl t Y ti' m rrtkZ,14��1 rt Tj t1 C_G YYl Y1 t �� C� 10-L - 1531 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 331 Site Number 331, occupying a tax lot 103 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 29, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 331 comprises approximately 15 acres and is located along the western flanks of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by E.A. Moore and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned SM and RR -10. The subject site is adjacent to two other surface mines, sites 332 and 333. In the past there has been confusion over the numbering of these sites. The subject site (331) has had the wrong tax lot number indicated in the staff report. Tax lot 103 is the correct tax lot number for this site. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 i0l __1 1532 mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located along the western flanks of Tetherow Butte and slopes down to the northwest. The site is served by a cinder haul road which provides access to Northwest Way approximately one-third mile from the site. To the south is Squire Ridge subdi- vision, which consists of numerous five -acre lots. The subject site is an existing cinder pit which has been used for at least 15 years. The site is in the middle of a large area of cinder mining and reserves. The majority of the site has been excavated, and that portion of the site which has not been excavated consists of sagebrush and juniper. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. Conflicts The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 - ),Q b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 0 t3 ° 1 5 :3 4 permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 Lot „ 1535 part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97 and Northwest Way, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway main- tenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 t'av 1'2' ju-i 153G secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is already in existence. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 �r I(ji , 153_ e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 101 - 1538 impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 8 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 331 10,1 „ 1539 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 fj,,t - 15 d 0 Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 eTy ' 101 ^ 1541 Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 f 1542 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #331 (J 1543 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 4. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 4/28/88 5. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 7/14/87 6. LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 7/10/87 7. LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 4/3/87 8. LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 3/2/87 9. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DSATED 12/18/86 10. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 9/13/83 11. LETTER TO THE DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL INDUSTRIES 9/7/83 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 1/10/85 13. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 6/7/84 14. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/7/84 15. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 7/7/83 16. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 11/8/82 17. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 1/4/80 18. RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 7/29/88 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 20. TAX APPRAISERS CARDS 21. NOTIFICATION MAPS 22. LETTER R. BROWN 5/2/83 23. LETTER G. LYNCH 8/1/89 24. LETTER D. JAQUA 8/18/87 25. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 26. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 27. KAREN GREEN'S NOTES FROM BOARD HEARING 28. LETTER FROM JOHN WILLIAMS DATED 8/21/89 29. LETTER FROM YOUNG 8/11/89 30. LETTER FROM SHEPARD 8/9/89 31. LETTER FROM ZELLA MORTON 8/14/89 32. LETTER FROM BUD TOREOM DATED 8/10/89 33. LETTER FROM L. NIELSON 8/7/89 34. DOGAMI GARY LYNCH DATED 9/7/89 35. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 8/29/89 .36. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMENDATION :�7. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/20/89 38 . �3vd 06r-Gl m"-\- L Ho J 1544 ()� «,I --f ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 332 Site Number 332, occupying tax lot 102 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 29, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 332 comprises approximately 15 acres and is located on the northwestern flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by R. L. Coats and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned SM, RR -10, MUA-10 and EFU-20. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 , A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has two million cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is an active cinder pit which has been used since the 19501s. The site is served by a cinder haul road which is located to the southwest of the site and connects with Northwest Way approximately one-half mile from the subject site. There are two other large cinder pits adjoining the subject site. There are residen- tial subdivision located within one-half mile of the subject property. However, it does not appear that any of the subdivision lots have a view of the surface mine. There have been several letters from concerned neighbors in the area which are contained in the file. Most of these letter are concerned with expansion of the subject cinder pit. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. Conflicts The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 La. 1547 b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the MUA-10 and RR -10 zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the MUA-10 and RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are approximately five homes within close proximity to the site. There is an undeveloped subdivision nearby, but is is not possible to predict to what extent it is likely to be developed. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 -t -a 1548 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 o )4 g u,i 1549 opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Northwest Way and Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway main- tenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no 5 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 332 ' () -t 15 5 0 longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 0647 C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97 and road in the local area. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 i wl " 155E in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 I(JI - 1553 land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative_ Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 +' 1554 Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 0651 101 - 1555 The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 r— Co 3• )k., 101 -, 1556 sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #332 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. MAP 4. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 5. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 2/22/88 6. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 1/13/87 7. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/6/85 8. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/6/85 9. MEMO FROM RICHARD ISHAM DATED 5/21/84 10. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 1/3/84 11. LETTER FROM RONALD L. BROWN DATED 5/2/83 12. REPORT ON ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 4/27/83 13. LETTER TO EMIL J. HOWELL DATED 3/14/83 14. LETTER FROM BARBARA BAGG DATED 3/1/83 15. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 2/11/83 16. PROVISIONAL SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/12/82 17. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/25/82 18. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/25/82 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/25/82 20. PROVISIONAL SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISCUED 3/12/82 21. APPLICATION FRONT SHEET FOR OPERATING PERMIT 22. LETTER TO DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL INDUSTRIES DATED 3/1/82 23. APPLICATION FOR OPERATING PERMIT DATED 12/28/81 24. PROVISIONAL SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 2/12/82 f 25. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/3/82 26. LETTER TO ROBERT COATS DATED 8/20/81 27. AMENDMENT TO COUNTY ZONING MAP DATED 5/14/80 28. NOTE SHEET 29. NOTIFICATION MAPS 30. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 31. ASSESSORS INFORMATION 32. MYLAR 33. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 34. LETTER FROM LAWRENCE NIELSON 8/7/89 35. LETTER FROM BUD TOREOM DATED 8/10/89 36. LETTER FROM SPENCER SHEPARD DATED 8/9/89 37. LETTER FROM YOUNG DATED 8/11/89 38. LETTER FROM ZELLA MORTON 8/14/89 39. LETTER FROM DAVID JAQUA DATED 8/18/89 40. LETTER FROM JOHN WILLIAMS 8/21/89 4Z • �,c-�{ o� C1>rri m►57'�one� G'1.ec-t,S �L�n rri�nuts s y3 12� ��m�oC-,Am�� rn'in2� 101nC� �eC��t;c7nrmt� i" Sri Lot 1 1559 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 333 Site Number 333, occupying tax lot 104 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 29, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 333 comprises approximately 10 acres and is located on northwest flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by Emil Howell and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-40, MUA-10, RR -10 and SM. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 q y:® r lid 10 �. -, 1560 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 500,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located along the northwestern flanks of Tetherow Butte. There is an existing cinder haul road which serves several other cinder pits adjoining the subject site. The majority of the site has already been excavated and the site has existing DOGAMI surface mining permits. There are several houses within one-half mile and numerous vacant lots, including Squire Ridge subdivision to the south. This site has in past been confused with site 331. The staff report for site 331 and 333 had these sites confused as did the appraiser's report and photos which were previously in the file. There have been several letters received in opposition to the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The site is not within an LM zone, however, views of Tetherow Butte have been identified as an important resource. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 iol - 1661 The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 i{il 1562 that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are four to five homes within close proximity to the site. There is an undeveloped subdivision nearby, but it is not possible to predict to what extent it is likely to be developed. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 $ 10.1 -, 1563 consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Northwest Way and Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway main- tenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 ioll - 1b64 would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 101 - 1565 important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97 and local roads. d. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 ­Itl . V.)k)A, I 1566 One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 1— ., k oto., L 1567 traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 L.01 - 156 8 and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 o`,-T?t). i�-r, 1 Conflicting Resources 101 -, 1569 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 .. � Tp I4 applicant can demonstrate that not cause a mining operation to standards; and the proposed use will violate the siting b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 ;-. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #333 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. LETTER FROM CENTRAL OREGON TRACTOR EQUIPMENT DATE 7/22/86 3. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 4. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 4/5/88 5. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 4/20/87 6. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/6/86 7. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 8/14/85 8. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 4/27/84 9. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 8/13/84 10. TAX LOT CARD & CONTRACT OF SALE 11. NOTIFICATION MAPS 12. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 13. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 14. LETTER D. JAQUA DATED 8/18/89 15. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 16. LETTER FROM ZELLA MORTON DATED 8/14/89 17. LETTER FROM SPENCER SHEPARD DATED 8/9/89 18. LETTER FROM YOUNG 8/11/89 19. LETTER FROM JOHN WILLIAMS 8/21/89 20. LETTER FROM NEILSON DATED 8/7/89 21. LETTER FROM BUD TOREOM 8/10/89 ZZ . f �nYi c� CAmrr-i,�� ion C2Lomrne�'1C1,�0�'1 Z3� C© mrY:ner5 Al - 112 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 335 Site Number 335, occupying tax lot 890 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 335 comprises approximately 6 acres and is located on the westerly flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by Robert W. and Earlene Irvin and is zoned RR -10. Adja- cent land is zoned SM, SMR and RR -10. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board.on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of excellent quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located on the west flank of Tetherow Butte. The subject property is an exist- ing cinder pit which has been used for at least 20 years. This site is in an area of active cinder mining, and there are numerous developed pits within one-half mile. There are also several residential properties bordering the subject site. There has been some opposition to the subject site and a notation that the subject site has been used for dumping of materials in the past. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 Ot i� O L01 1574 The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 110"1 15 Y5 should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur � () 1 15.16 any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 t: �> 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 10,E - Ibis Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consecruences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. ` 7 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 335 1az '� t— ? The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 10L - 1580 environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 4 County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 06 78 IV .0 " :1582 conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 i(jt -, 1583 Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 TABLE OF CONTENTS n 1 SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Cover information sheet 3 - Map - 4 - Questionnaire sheet 5 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/3/86 6 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 2/25/87 7 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 1/11/85 8 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/5/85 9 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 2/15/84 10 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/19/83 11 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/2/82 12 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/18/81 13 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 11/20/80 14 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 11/10/80 15 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 11/15/79 16 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/2/77 17 - +, „ 12lI/66 �q - a� C2 N 1584 ,E ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 336 Site Number 336, occupying tax lots 400 and 500 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 336 comprises approximately 30 acres and is located adjoining Highway 97 on the eastern flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by the U.S. Bank Trust and is zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU-20, EFU-40, MUA-10 and LM. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 ( ".0 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 750,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located on the north side of Pershall Way and west of Highway 97 north of Redmond. This is an existing cinder pit which was allowed through a conditional use permit granted in 1977. The subject site is on the eastern edge of a large area of active cinder mining. Within one-half mile to the west are four large cinder pits. To the east side of the property is .Highway 97 and various commercial and residential properties further to the east. The subject site is very visible from Highway 97. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent EFU 20 and EFU 40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. This site is in plain view of Highway 97. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 0681 indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 i0l 1588 The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other .natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling on Highway 97 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 101 - 1589 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 10*1 - 1590 The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 )f,_;IS 8 L - 1591 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97. d. This site is already in existence. e. Highway 97 is a major highway landscape management corridor, and site 336 is readily visible from the highway. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 0688 i01L 1592 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 ?89 + 01 1593 operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 0690 0l -:1594 mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 10. , 1595 f. The applicant shall not be allowed to mine closer to Highway 97 than the existing easterly edge of the excavated area of the existing cinder pit. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 3 I . a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 3364 )`_% . CXf+I B [-r TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #336 i0l 1597 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 4. MAP 5. MAP 6. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEETS 7. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON CINDER PIT DATED 1/11/78 8. CINDER PIT INFORMATION SHEET FROM MID -OREGON CRUSHING CO 9. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/28/87 10. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/7/86 11. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/21/85 12. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/16/84 13. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 5/25/82 14. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/17/82 15. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/26/81 16. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 10/28/80 17. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/3/80 18. LETTER FROM PAT DEAN DATED 7/5/77 19. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 6/18/77 20. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 6/15/77 21. LETTER FROM NETTIE ADAMS DATED 6/10/77 22. LETTER TO MID -OREGON CRUSHING DATED 6/6/77 23. LETTER TO DESCHUTES COUNTY DATED 6/3/77 24. LETTER FROM WARNER & ALICE JOHNSON DATED 6/3/77 25. MEMO FROM THEODORE W. THORSON DATED 5/11/77 k 4. i t) IL - 1593 26. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAM FROM W.N. DAVIDSON 27. PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE SHEETS 28. MID -OREGON CRUSHING CO. INFORMATION SHEET REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE 29. MID -OREGON CRUSHING CO. PICTURES & KEY TO PICTURES 30. LETTER FROM JOHN E. BORDEN DATED 5/25/77 31. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 5/11/77 32. LOOK -UP SHEET WITH NAMES & ADDRESSES 33. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 4/11/77 34. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/15/77 35. CHECK LIST FOR NOTIFICATION MAPS 36. MEMO TO BOB FROM LORIN MORGAN 37. NOTIFICATION MAPS 38. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION DATED 9/21/88 39. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 40. LETTER US BANK 6/20/86 41. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 42. MYLAR 43. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 8/18/85 44. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/25/89 TABLE OF CONTENTS ! Q SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Cover information sheet 3 - Cover information sheet 4 - Map 5 - Map 6 - Questionnaire sheets 7 - Legal description on Cinder pit dated 1/11/78 8 - Cinder Pit information sheet from Mid -Oregon Crushing Co. 9 - Grant of Total Exemption issued 10/28/87 10 - Grant of Total Exemption issued 10/7/86 11 - Grant of Total Exemption issued 1/21/85 12 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 1/16/84 13 - Grant of Total Exemption issued 5/25/82 14 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 5/17/82 15 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/26/81 16 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 10/28/80 17 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/3/80 18 - Letter from Pat Dean dated 7/5/77 19 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 6/18/77 20 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 6/15/77 21 - Letter from Nettie Adams dated 6/10/77 22 - Letter to Mid Oregon Crushing dated 6/6/77 23 Letter to Deschutes County dated 6/3/77 24 - Letter from Warner & Alice Johnson dated 5/20/77 25 - Memo from Theodore W. Thorson dated 5/11/77 26 - Western Union Telegram from W.N. Davidson 27 - Petition to Deny Condistional Use sheets 28 - Mid -Oregon Crushing Co. information sheet regarding Conditional Use 29 - Mid -Oregon Crushing Co. pictures & kev to pictures TABLE OF CONTENTS • 101 1600 p SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: (page 2) 30 - Letter from John E. Borden dated 5/25/77 31 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 5/11/77 32 - Look -up sheet with Names & Addresses 33 - Conditional Use Permit Application dated 4/11/77 34 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 2/15/77 35 - Check List for Notification Maps 36 - Memo note To Bob From Lorin Morgan 31- ti(�4i catfu. vv 01, qa— c ivyj JO -1 1 601 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 339 Site Number 339, occupying tax lot 1500 in Township 14 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 32 came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 339 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located south of Goodrich Loop in northern Deschutes County. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned EFU-40. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-40. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 339 t)6, s A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,000 cubic yards of low quality, rocky fill. The Board notes that Dick Johnson from the County Public Works Department testified that this was not a high priority site because the quality of the fill was poor. This contradicts the staff report when the site was put on the inventory. Fill has no particular value which warrants protection under Goal 5. Fill of this type is nothing more than normal soil. Based on these facts and the fact that there were seven letters and a petition with 40 signatures in opposition to mining this site, the Board finds that this is a poor site for borrow of a non -Goal 5 mineral and aggregate material. For this reason, the Board keeps the existing EFU-40 zoning on this property. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 339 CX(�31T- A 4. 5. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #339 INVENTORY SHEET PUBLIC WORKS RESOURCE LIST NOTIFICATION MAPS APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT MAP LETTER FROM JACK B. PETERSON - AUG 1, 1989 MYLAR OF TOPO MAP Board do h¢arirr, m,nkttS ama C6 Go cn rri rasnr wus Ci 6 Sion rn,%nu--tLS lefe r kl>rin ot�R w 01-10-81 1E03 t:� 1 6 u 4 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 342 Site Number 342, occupying tax lot 203 in Township 22 South, Range 9 E.W.M., Section 2, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 342 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located two miles east of Wickiup Reservoir. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is currently zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 and owned by Crown Pacific. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 1 6 0 5 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,000 cubic yards of fair quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located in a forested area surrounded by Crown Pacific forest lands. The site has in the past been used for cinders for logging roads. Previously, there have been DOGAMI permits issued for access road improvement. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 j6.1 -M 16OG on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 101 -^ 1607 Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 io ll - 1508 such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 a. 1609 protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highways 20 and 126. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. f. Highway 126 is the main highway between the cities of Sisters and Redmond and site 248 is readily visible from the highway. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 � 01 :1.61. U values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 10.1 1612 lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 .`', AO d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 V 101 -, 1614 boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #342 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. LOCATION OF QUANITY/QUALITY OF RESOURCES 3. DOGAMI SURFACE MINING PERMIT ISSUED 8/6/79 4. ON-SITE INSPECTION REPORT 5. DOGAMI SURFACE MINING PERMIT ISSUED 12/1/80 6. DOGAMI SURFACE MINING PERMIT ISSUED 9/8/81 7. DOGAMI SURFACE MINING PERMIT ISSUED 7/21/82 8. DOGAMI SURFACE MINING PERMIT ISSUED 7/21/83 9. DOGAMI ON SITE INSPECTION REPORT 5/24/84 10. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 8/13/84 11. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 11/1/84 12. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/9/85 13. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/4/86 14. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/10/87 15. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/7/88 16. LETTER FROM COUNTY PLANNING TO NEIL HARTFORD DATED 10/18/88 17. LETTER FROM TED YOUNG DATED 11/2/88 18. GENERAL INVENTORY OF CROWN PACIFIC LAND 19. NOTIFICATION MAP 20. STAFF REPORT 21. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 22. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 07/1 101 1616 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF THE ) DETERMINATION OF THE ) ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL,) FINDINGS AND DECISION ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC ) CONSEQUENCES OF THE ) USE OF INVENTORY SITE ) NO. 341 (VARCO RD.) ) FOR SURFACE MINING. } The Varco Road site, also desscri,bed as Tax ID No. 16.02 106, Deschutes County Assessor's Office came before the Board of Commissioners for herring on May 18, 1989. The Board continued the matter until June 7, 1989 to make a tentative decision. By adoption of theme findings and decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that tentative decision this date. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, which was placed in the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's comprehensive pian and zoning regulations as "SM" or "Surface dining." For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGiS The Varco Road site comprises 174 acres, of which 95 acres is proposed for surface mining and is located southwest of the end of Varco Road in the Deschutes National Forest. The site is is owned by the Estate of Newell Baker and the mineral rights are owned by the Young and Morgan Timber Co., an Oregon Corporation. The site is currently zoned SMR and MA and is designated for Agricrultural, Surface Mining Reserve, Forest and Surface Mining, 1 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) � . 1617 and Wildlife Area Combining Zone on the Deschutes County comprehensive Plan. Adjacent property is zoned MUA 10, EFU 20, F2 and SM. HEARING AND EXHIBITS A hearing on the proposal to classify the subject site For surface mining use was held before the Deschutes County Planning Commission on February 22, 1989. A dg nes hearing was held before the Board of Commissioners on May 18, 1989. The Board had before it the record and minutes of the Planning Commission and also reviewed the list of Exhibits set forth in Exhibit "A" to these findings and decision. There were no prehearing contacts on this matter by Board members, no conflicts declared by Board members, save Commissioner Maudlin who excused himself from the deliberation and determination of this matter because his wife had a listing as a realtor on nearby property which could be affected by his decision in this matter, and there were no other challenges to participation by Board members. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, and its implementing administrative rule, OAR 660-16-000 to 025. Because the subject site has already been included on the inventory of aggregate materials, no discussion of the quantity, quality and location of such materials is necessary. The Board adopts and believes the material in the surface mining inventory regarding this site. 2 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) 161b The staff report before the Planning commission and this Board, which the Board believes, determines that there are conflicts between surface mining use on the one hand, and other Goal 5 uses on the other hand. The Board's decision is thus limited to determining a program to achieve compliance of the county's Comprehensive Plan with Goal 5 under OAR 660-16-010. The Board does not reach the issue of conflicts between surface mining use of the subject site and uses not set forth in Goal 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Identification of Goal 5 ResQurggs and Conflicts -- The Board believes, based on the staff report and the testimony of * * received at the May 18, 1989 hearing, that the following Goal 5 resources, previously identified in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, are conflicting uses with surface mining: open apace, wildlife, and scenic values. Staff Report at 1. The Board further believes that human presence and noise, dust, and traffic are each specific conflicts between the aforementioned Goal 5 resources and surface mining, as set forth at pp. 2-5 of the staff report. 2. Dunt The Board believes the testimony of Jack Myer, a registered professional engineer with 40 years experience in his profession, and Gary Hampton, a meterologist, which stated that the dust generated from this site was a fine substance which can travel great distances in the prevailing westerly winds. JM Ex. 11. The Board also believes the testimony of Stosh Thompson 3 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LI'VESAY ROAD) ars"15 07/11/1990 14:1g PRESTON, THORGRIMSON 503 248 9085 P. I JAI - 1619 regarding the adverse effects of dust on wildlife. The Board finds that dust generated at this site, even if limited to periods in which human activity is permitted in the Tumalo Deer winter Range, an area which includes the subject site, occurs at times in which the area0s greatest asset, i.e. its scenic beauty, is to be enjoyed by tourists. Scenic beauty and open space are given great value in the County Comprehensive Plan and the Board concludes that allowing surface mining would conflict with those values to the extent that it would be impossible to conserve such beauty and open space. Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the Bend -sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that open space and scenics values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. A timber zone, which carries out the open space and scenic views portions of the County plan is determined by this Board to be a better means of carrying out Goal 5 and its administrative rule and the County Comprehensive Plan than designation of the site for surface mining. 3. Transportation -- In the site specific discussion of this site at p. 4 of the staff report, it is stated that only sporadic use would be made of this site. The Board finds that, in any event, use of the site could not be made during the closed season of the Tumalo Deer winter Range, which is currently between November and March each year. The Board also finds that, based 4 ^^ FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) W r/11/113W� 141 V0 IJNI;S I UN i I Hul' WK on the testimony of Jim Behrens, the local Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW") Biologist, that there may be a need for an extension of the closed season for one month on either side of the present closed season. The Board further finds that the remaining months of the year are the period in which the greatest number of tourists come to the Bend -Sisters area and that unacceptable levels of conflicts between trucks and other vehicles using the mining site and tourist vehicles would occur. The Board believes and accepts the testimony of Mr. Scott that the use of adjacent roads by trucks and other vehicles using this site would have a deleterious effect on the local transportation system. Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that open space and scenic values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. 4. Haman Presence and NQ -- The Board rejects the .site specific portions of the staff report (p. 5) which relate to wildlife. The Board believes the testimony of Mr. Scott, who testified as to the equipment typically used in a surface mining operation of the nature of proposed on the subject site, which would include trucks, loaders, grizzlies and crushers. The Board also believes the one witness who was qualified to testify as to noise impacts, Albert G. Duble Jr., an Oregon registered acoustical engineer. The Board further finds that the 5 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) 07/11 /15I9Z 14120 PRk51 DN o THDRUR I M'S , 1621 applicant's engineer, Mr. Herbert, was not so qualified and disbelieves his testimony. The Board finds that Mr. Duble conducted a study of this site and presented a report (Ex. _} to the Board on his findings and Conclusions. Mr. Duble found that aggregate mining on this site would raise the ambient noise level more than 10 db, in violation of OAR 340-35-035. Mr. Duble also stated that, in view of the prevailing winds, it was unlikely any berms would be able to reduce noise levels by more than 5 db. The Board believes and accepts Mr. Duble's study and his testimony. The Board also accepts and believes the testimony of Dr. Stosh Thompson, who holds a Masters in Biology and a Doctorate in Zoology, and is the author of the report on which ODFW determined to close the Tumalo Deer Winter Range for certain months. Dr. Thompson operates a wildlife sanctuary in the area and testified, and the Board believes, that the use of the subject site for surface mining would conflict with the wildlife use of that site and adjacent areas within the Winter Range. The Board .also believes the written and oral testimony to the same effect by Kathy Miller and Mike Steele. Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that wildlife values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. S. Egonomic Conseggencea -- The Board finds, on the basis of 6 FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) 10 IL - 16122 Ex. 7, the map of aggregate sites available on federal lands, and Ex. 8, the letter from Larry Chitwood of the United Statee Forest Service to the Board dated _ , 1989, that there are other available sources of aggregate in the Bend -Sisters area for the public sector. The Board further finds that the availability of these sites will relieve the pressure on privately owned sites for private aggregate use. The Board also believes the testimony of Mr. Scott, opponentts engineer who is well qualified to testify on mutters of engineering geology and said that the resource on this site was in the same alluvial fan as the Livesay site, shallow (but more than S feet deep) and not unique. Mr. Scott submitted Exs. 5-8 to demonstrate that there were other available sites in the area on federal property and that those sites were available for County use. The Board accepts and believes such testimony. The Hoard also finds that the effect on roads at and around the subject site is considerable, as get forth in the fourth paragraph at p. 12 of the staff report, which the Board accepts and believes.l The Board finds that the elimination of this site from use 1. "There is a potential cost involved to the County if mining is to occur at this site. Mining activities cause a major increase of traffic both to and from the mining sites. This increase in traffic may increase the Trate of deterioration of the roads which bear the burden of this traffic. cost of rehabilitating or resurfaceing [sic] these roads could be quite high.0 7 -- PXXDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) k �7 19 07/11/1990 14:21 PRESTON, THORGRIMSON 503 248 9085 10 P.09 `a 1623 for aggregate mining, or the elimination of any one site in the county, except for site 308, "would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County-" (Staff Report at p. 16.) The County has not eliminated any significant amount of the 24 million cubic yards of aggregate which are on sites which have thus far been determined to have uses conflicting with aggregate resource use. Combined with the relative availability of aggregate on federal lands, the Board concludes that there would be little effect on public users of aggregate by the elimination of this site from aggregate use. The Board also finds that there would inevitably be effects on recreational uses by permitting mining of the aggregate resource and concludes that the risks of such mining to the Countyla tourist industry would be unacceptably high. Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the Send -Sisters area, the Hoard determines and concludes that wildlife, open space and scenic values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. 6. Social Conseguences -- The Board adopts the general discussion of this matter at p. 13 of the staff report but rejects the site specific discussion. The Hoard finds that the subject site has open space and scenic values as part of the Tumalo-Sisters area and that the noise, dust, and traffic generated by the use of this site for surface mining adversely affects the tourist industry in this area. 8 -- FINDINGS AND DOCTSION (LIVESAY ROAD) :' ( The Board also finds that the reduction of the numbers of deer and other wildlife affects the tourist industry over and above the inherent value of wildlife to the County. The Board also finds that, because of the availability of other sources of aggregate in the area that the social welfare of County residents and taxpayers remains substantially unaffected by the decision to allow conflicting Goal 5 uses fully. The decision to rezone the subject site to a resource use, rather than a surface mining or rural residential use, will also aid in retaining the wildlife, scenic view and open space character. 7. Energy Consequences -- The Board finds no significant energy consequence of designating the subject site for surface mining use, given the relative availability to public agencies of other sources of aggregate on federal lands. S. Envirgrnnental consequences -- The Board agrees with much of the general discussion of these consequences found at p. 14-15 of the staff report. The Board believes staff testimony that the subject site is within the Tumalo Deer Winter Range and has.high use by deer and medium use by sensitive raptors. The Board also finds that the subject site is adjacent to a 105 -acre wildlife rehabilitation center and believes the testimony of Ma. Steele that the facility would be adversely affected by the location of a surface mining operation in the area. The Board is not convinced, however, that utilization of the subject site for surface mining would ever enhance its environmental value and finds no evidence in the record for such 9 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) a conclusion. Moreover, the Board has determined that adverse environmental consequences on wildlife, as indicated in Mr. Duble"s testimony, is tar greater than set forth in the staff report and, in fact, rises to an unacceptable level. The Board believes the testimony of Dr. Thompson, Mss. Miller and Mr. Steele, that the effects of noise, traffic and occupancy Of the site will have significant adverse effects on wildlife which cannot be mitigated during the period in which mining is proposed to occur. In addition, the Board does not find that the site can ever be restored to wildlife use. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the Board concludes that the subject site should not be designated "SMS' on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance map. Dated this day of , 1989. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Lois Bristow Prante, chair Gene Maudlin, Commissioner Tom Throap, Commissioner 10 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) TOTAL P.11 10 t - 162G EXHIBIT SCHEDULE SITE NO. 341 Date Color Received Exhibit Description Code Paae BOCC Hearing Minutes Fuchsia 103 BOCC Decision Minutes Fuchsia 102 Letter from Jay S. Hampton Peach 19 Letter from Elton F. O'Donnell Peach 68 Packet of Letters from Kathy Miller Peach 28 Petitions Peach 93 Petitions Peach 61 Planning Commission Recommendation Fuchsia 104 Staff Report Yellow 105 79 12-04 Letter from Farrell Pugmire Gray 85 80 01-15 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 84 80 06-12 Letter from Patricia A. Cramer Peach 95 80 07-28 Letter from Kathy (Miller) Harrison Peach 74 85 03-12 Complaint of Unlawful Surface Mining Blue 82 85 06-19 Letter from DOGAMI Buff 22 86 02-09 Letter from Kelly McFarlane Peach 113 86 02-09 Letter from Robert Johnnie Peach 114 86 03-10 Letter from Kathy (Miller) Harrison Peach 71 86 03-10 Packet of Letters on ZC-85-7 Peach 29 86 03-19 Packet of Information on ZC-85-7 Peach 30 88 02-03 Letter from Dave Jaqua Gray 107 88 03-03 Letter from Dave Jaqua Peach 5 88 10-10 Letter from James D. Morgan Peach 15 88 10-10 Letter from James Young Peach 81 88 11-07 Letter from Kathleen Miller Peach 63 88 11-08 Letter from John T. & Helen S. Meier Peach 79 88 11-16 Letter from John & Helen Meier Peach 1 89 01-27 Letter from Dave Jaqua Peach 77 89 01-30 Letter from Kathy Miller Peach 2 89 02-10 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Homer Williamston Peach 75 89 02-13 Letter from John W. Grant Peach 61 89 02-13 Letter from John W. Grant Peach 4 89 02-13 Letter from Gary Hayden Peach 3 89 02-14 Letter from Dorothy Stevens Peach 9 89 02-14 Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Z.J. Peach 7 89 02-14 Letter from. Rich & Corrine Rago Peach 8 89 02-14 Letter from Mr. Kiesow Peach 6 89 02-15 Letter from Frank Bales Peach 14 89 02-15 Letter from Cameron & Martha Thomas Peach 13 89 02-15 Letter from Lloyd T. Hampton Peach 12 89 02-15 Letter from Myron & Marian Gustafson Peach 11 89 02-15 Letter from Connie Bruneau Peach 10 89 02-16 Letter from Mrs. Linda Meyers Peach is 89 02-16 Letter from Barbara Butler Peach 16 99 02-16 Letter from Geroge J. & Barbara Lee Winterfield Peach 17 89 02-17 Letter from Brigitte K. Gager Peach 21 89 02-17 Letter from Robert & Betty Harries Peach 70 01 - 1627 89 02-17 Letter from John T. & Helen S. Meier Peach 23 89 02-17 Letter from Mrs. Willard Mitchell Peach 20 89 02-19 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 78 89 02-19 Letter from Kathy Miller Peach 72 89 02-20 Author Unknown Peach 46 89 02-20 Letter from John T. Meier Peach 36 89 02-20 Letter from Dennis R. Nason Peach 51 89 02-21 Letter from Paul & Annece Davis Peach 40 89 02-21 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Homer Williamston Peach 24 89 02-21 Letter from Robert E. & Betty J. Harries Peach 39 89 02-21 Letter from Milton C. Sparks Peach 41 89 02-21 Letter from Shirley Conley Peach 38 89 02-21 Letter from Donna Kennedy Peach 31 89 02-21 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 33 89 02-21 Letter from Eric Dolson Blue 101 89 02-21 Letter from Marvin A. Larson Peach 37 89 02-22 Letter from Jennifer Becker Peach 27 89 02-22 Message from Linda Clempel & Joe Cannon Peach 26 89 02-23 DOGAMI Letter Mustard 106 89 02-23 Letter from Duane Hansen Peach 47 89 02-23 Letter from Mark Becker Peach 44 89 02-23 Letter from ODFW Buff 43 89 03-21 Affidavit of Water Well Information Peach 108 89 03-22 Letter from Dennis r. Nason Peach 86 89 03-23 Letter from Eric Dolson Blue 25 89 03-28 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Barry Frazier Peach 48 89 04-01 Letter from Milton & Barbara Sparks Peach 49 89 04-05 Letter from Amos & Amy McDonald Peach 60 89 04-05 Letter from Rod & Sandy McDonald Peach 112 89 04-12 Letter from Dr. & Mrs Ray Walpole Peach 59 89 04-13 Letter from Ken Davis Peach 34 89 04-13 Letter from Barbara Lee & George Winterfield Peach 55 89 04-14 Letter from Isabel Smith Peach 54 89 04-18 Letter from Milton & Barbara Sparks Peach 50 89 04-18 Letter from Corrine Rago Peach 53 89 04-20 Letter from Charles& Marilyn Pavore Peach 56- 89 04-22 Letter from Ian & Debra Carter Peach 67- 89 04-22 Letter from Dennis R. Nason Peach 52 89 04-22 Letter from Robert & Betty Harries Peach 42 89 04-23 Letter from Alan & Linda Parmenter Peach 35 89 04-23 Letter from Barbara Butler Peach 58 89 04-24 Letter from Cameron B. Thomas Peach 57 89 04-26 Letter from Martha Thomas Peach 32 89 05-01 Letter from Grace Bons Williamston Peach 109 89 05-04 Letter from Richard Rago Peach 80 89 05-05 Letter from Debbie & Ray Wagner Peach 89 89 05-05 Letter from Ponderosa Cascade Homeowners Peach 87 89 05-05 Letter from Michael Nelson Peach 91 89 05-05 Letter from Debbie & Ray Wagner Peach 92 89 05-09 Letter from R. T. Panuccio Peach 111 89 05-09 Letter from C. W. Johnson Peach 88 99 05-10 Letter from Eric Dolson Blue 100 89 05-12 Letter from Ken Davis Peach 83 89 05-12 Letter from Steven D. Olds Peach 110 1011 1628 89 05-16 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Barry Frazier Peach 65 89 05-16 Letter from Roger Borine (OR Hunters Assoc) Peach 69 89 05-16 Letter from Sandra Olds Peach 94 89 05-17 Letter from the Nasons'Peach 64 89 05-19 Neil Goldschmidt's Letters Peach 90 89 05-30 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 73 89 06-05 Letter from Warren & Rosemary Johnson Peach 76 89 08-08 Letter from Dave Jaqua Peach 99 89 09-18 Diversion Agreement Blue 97 89 12-08 Memo from R. Green re: Diversion Agreement Blue 98 90 02-22 Extension of Divers' -on Order Blue 96 10 It -].62,9 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 345 Site Number 345, occupying tax lot 1000 in Township 16 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 35, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 345 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located in the southeast quarter of section 35. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned F-2 and WA. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 and WA. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 101 1630 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located off a logging road in a forested area. Property for over one mile in all directions is owned by the subject property owner. The site has in the past been used as a cinder source for logging roads. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route, with medium frequency of use, and medium use by sensitive raptors. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include further destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by continued surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and continued human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 i0l - 1632 suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 L.0 1 1633 gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and; this site has a significant quantity of cinder and is located nearby logging roads. C. This site is already in existence. d. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 �`0 13. Economic Consequences. The economic tecting the cinder resource relates surface mining on adjacent uses, the commercial commodity and the impacts ment in the mining industry and the ities foregone by development of the t r 1634 consequences of pro - to the impacts of value of cinder as a of protecting employ - development opportun- site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts.. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 Al -, 1635 some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 101 - 163G increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictinu Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b) and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 1.0 .. - 16 :3 i a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. Wildlife conditions as set forth in the ODFW letter of August 10, 1989 recommending deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The Board finds that processing on site will allowed. Conflictinq Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 0l - 1638 mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 r A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #345 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET 4. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET/MAP 5. NOTIFICATION MAPS 6. STAFF REPORT 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR �� -� 1 6 4 U 101 - 1 6 4 1 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 346 Site Number 346, occupying tax lot 1000 in Township 16 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 36, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 346 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located near the center of section 36 in the middle of forest land. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned F-2. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 10-1 -, 1E42 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has approximately 50,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site has in the past been used as a borrow pit for maintaining logging roads. The site is over one mile from any property not under the ownership of the applicant. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. (1) Wildlife. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has recognized this site to contain important deer habitat. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 \�Y „ 01 -:1643 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 �.i 1645 Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 Al f. this site has a significant quantity of cinders, and the site is well located to serve as a source of cinders for nearby logging roads. C. This site is already in existence. d. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 i0"l 154 r 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby logging roads would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 �. 1648 with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b) and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 [ 'l - 1 643 Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. Wildlife conditions as set forth in the ODFW letter of August 10, 1989 recommending this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 1� ;C v iol - 1650 The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. (The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway.] Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 All aNBIV A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #346 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. MAP 4. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET 5. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET/MAP SHEET 6. CROWN PACIFIC 7. NOTIFICATION MAPS 8. STAFF REPORT ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 347 a0-1 - 1653 Site Number 347, occupying tax lot 300 in Township 16 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 1, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 347 comprises approximately 60 acres and is located north of Dusty Loop west of Gerking Market Road. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned SMR. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and EFU-40. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - �1 ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 347s13� �. 16b4 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 10,000 cubic yards of fill dirt. 2. Site Characteristics. This site has been used as a fill borrow site in the past. The site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. The site is located in a rural residential and farm use area. There are numerous homes along Dusty Loop which are within one-half mile of the site. To the east of the site is a ranch and the rest of the surrounding property is natural range land. 3. Conclusionary Findings. The Board finds that the subject site has been used as a borrow pit for fill dirt. The Board finds that there is no evidence to support establishing this type of dirt resource as a protected Goal 5 resource. The fill material located on this site is a common material and shows no evidence to suggest that it has the value of select fill which is an inventory Goal 5 resource. Further, the Board finds that there are numerous residential uses in close proximity to the subject property which decreases the site's desirability for fill material. Based upon the fact that there is no evidence to support protecting this type of material, the Board finds that this site should not be zoned for surface mining. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 347 I' CX.�rpira TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #347 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MEMO FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 3. LEGEND ON AGGREGATE RESOURCE INVENTORY 4. EVALUATION SHEET 5. NOTIFICATION MAPS 6. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 7. MYLAR 8. LETTER FROM DUSTY LOOP RESIDENTS 8/13/89 9. LETTER FROM MONA PRUITT 8/3/89 10. LETTER FROM SHIRLEY & ROGER DEMARIS 8-9-89 1 ?cad heaefr� M Ind-� 12, �cd COmm�:�Sion2rS de.66ior\ ryfmwUS :16b5 . ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 351 Site Number 351, occupying tax lots 1401, 1700 and 2000 in Township 16 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 351 comprises approximately 19 acres and is located along Innes Market Road, roughly one and one-half miles west of Cline Falls Road. The site is owned by Pat Gisler is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and RR -10. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the econo- mic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the con- flicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding area was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 L01 - 1657 Testimony was also received from two surrounding property owners indicating concern for traffic, noise, dust and a danger- ous corner that the site is located on. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 150,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is an existing surface mine which been used intermittently in the past. In is located on the southwest flanks of a small butte and the site is vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. The site is located in an area of rural residential and farm properties. Directly to the south is a home on the south side of the road, across from the entrance to the site. To the west are residential acreage properties. To the north and east in a large farm. The site is visible from the south and west. There is a home to the south within 250 feet of the site. The site has received approval from DOGAMI as a site which was suspected of surface mining prior to 1972. The site was allowed to be mined as part of a zone change Z80-14, approved by Deschutes County from EFU-20 to SM in 1980. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Scenic values. The proximity of the subject site to collector streets in the area raises a concern for scenic values. However, the RR -10 zoning in the area is not a resource zone which takes into account any specific scenic value. Conflicts There is testimony that very little cinders have been removed from the site in the last ten years. The conflicts on resource values would increase if the historic mining activity level of the site increases. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 ti i0 -, 1658 human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and EFU-20 zones would include: (1) At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SMR zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture or forestry may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated por- tions of the site. Uses in the RR -10 zone would also be conflicting in this regard, except for farms uses on unexcavated portions of the site. (2) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and off-road vehicle tracks. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly on residential uses. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The public testimony indicated that numerous persons who live in the area were concerned that the site would change from an inactive cinder pit to an active cinder pit and have a significant impact on the character of the rural residen- tial neighborhood. This was supported by Mr. Gisler's comments that little activity has occurred on the site since 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 ti f o .l .., 1659 1979 or 1980. Testimony regarding the serious turn problem and the access road was uncontradicted and supported by the maps in the file. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts, the conflicting uses in the zone are as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and visually disturb the 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 ioi - 1660 landscape. Such impacts would adversely affect the at- tributes that caused the residents of adjacent rural reside- ntial properties to locate there. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued or increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. There is some degree of need in the County for cinders and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 L 01 - 1661 would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that states that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads any longer. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggre- gate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valu- able sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect ag- gregate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 �31ti)Z'r 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the conflicting natural resources are more important than the cinder resource based on the following facts: (a) Failure to zone this site will not adversely affect the supply of cinders in the county; (b) There are other cinder sources in the County that the County is protecting that can supply cinders for road maintenance needs; (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that the conflicting natural resources should be protected and the cinder resource should not be. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16- 010(2) the conflicting resources should be protected fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 in the zone. Furthermore, use, and after reclamation become available for other 1663 surface mining is a transitional the land surface would then uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area, depending upon the level of use. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity could be high in this case due to the fact that it would be located immediately adjacent to a subdivision. Public testimony from nearby property owners illuminated concerns about the noise impacts of surface mining and its impact on the scenery surrounding their properties. Some of those consequences have already been imposed upon the surrounding properties due to the fact that this is an existing mine. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby roadways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. On the other hand, much of the area within 1/2 mile of the mine has already been developed or planned for development. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 ! 011 - 1 664 traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The protection of conflicting land uses could have the effect of causing higher transportation costs to the extent that denial of mining approval would cause cinders to be hauled to their point of use from more remote sites. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, there is an added cost of .22 per ton mile from extraction sites to the point of use. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by develop- ment where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater distan- ces. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 i o -L - '1665 to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Mineral Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that relative to one another the conflicting uses are more important than the cinder resource. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses;] Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will protect fully the conflicting uses at and surround- ing the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting mineral resources, as the Board finds that there has never been a concern about the adequacy of cinder availability in the County and that it has chosen to zone and protect 24 cinder sites representing 21,830,000 cubic yards of cinders. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION,- SITE NO. 351 T F-X-tL_blTA iol "-166c TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #351 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. MAP 4. MAP 5. MAP 6. MAP 7. LETTER FROM PATRICK M. GISLER DATED 4/15/86 8. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/14/82 9. BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. (ZONING ERROR) 10. VIC RUSSELL AND ASSOCIATES 11. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 1/26/82 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/23/81 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/19/81 14. ORDINANCE #80-211 15. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 10/15/80 16. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATED 7/9/80 17. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 7/9/80 18. LETTER FROM DONALD H. FARNESS DATED 7/2/80 19. FINDINGS & DECISION DATED 6/26/80 20. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 5/27/80 21. STAFF REPORT DATED 5/27/80 22. SAME AS ABOVE #21 1 1667 23. LETTER FORM DONALD H. FARNESS DATED 5/20/80 24. MEMO DATED 5/7/80 25. LOOK UP SHEET 26. MAILING LIST FOR SITE PLAN TRANSMITTALS 27. REVISED TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR ZONE CHANGE 28. REVISED TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR ZONE CHANGE 29. ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION DATED 4/29/80 30. APPLICATION REVIEW FILE SHEET 31. APPLICATION REVIEW FILE SHEET 32. LETTER FROM DANIEL E. VANVACTOR DATED 12/28/79 33. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/27/79 34. MINOR LAND PARTITION FORM 35. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL #1 36. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL #2 37. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL #3 38. NOTIFICATION MAPS 39. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 40. MYLAR 41. LETTER FROM RINEHART 8/9/89 42. LETTER FROM JOYCE GARDNER 8/9/89 43, 4t-1, �� „L Comrri�sSion�cS l�Qerlcr..� rri�ns�s 2 0-t 16168 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 355/356 Site Number 355, occupying tax lot 2100, and Site Number 356 occupying tax lot 2000 in Township 16 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 35, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989 and August 9, 1989, respectively. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these sites. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject sites, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that these sites should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 355 is owned by Cascade Pumice, Inc., and Site 356 is owned by Tumalo Irrigation District and leased to Cascade Pumice, Inc. Site 355 consists of approximately 40 acres and is located in the southwest corner of Site No. 356. Site 356 comprises 120 acres. The sites are located north of Tumalo Reservoir Road and west of Mock Road, approximately ten miles northwest of Bend. Both sites are currently zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and MUA-10. Both sites are located in a wildlife area combining zone because they are located in the Tumalo deer winter range. This site was identified as containing aggregate and pumice resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict - 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 10"1 1663 ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the operator of the site and neighborhood residents. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site 355 contains 750,000 to 1,000,000 cubic yard of excellent quality pumice. Site 356 originally contained 2,000,000 cubic yards of pumice, however, mining has proceeded since the initial inventory information was submitted. Currently there are 500,000 cubic yards or less of pumice left on the site as on-going mining operations continue. 2. Site characteristics. Site 355 consists of level pasture land which has not in the past been used for mining. Site 356 adjoins site 355 and slopes upward to the north. Site 356 has been an active pumice operation which was allowed by Deschutes County as part of a surface mining zone change approval in 1982. The surrounding area consists primarily of hobby farms which are 20-40 acres in size. The site is in an active pumice mining area. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range, with medium frequency of use. The surrounding properties all have a Wildlife Area combining zone, indicating that this area is part of the Tumalo winter deer range. There is also medium sensitive raptor use in the area. Neigh- borhood residents testified to seeing eagles in the area. 2. Open space. The surrounding zoning of EFU-20 and EFU- 40 indicates high open space values. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 �f� i0_1 - 1670 Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has characterized the impact of noise on deer at this site as medium. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would have an adverse impact on wildlife, open space and scenic resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the SM, EFU-20, EFU-40, and MUA-10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) The Board finds that the site is already committed to surface mining and that the existing surface mining 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 conflicts with other the SM zone in that the site for mining established. allowed and conditional uses in occupation of the surface area of prevents other uses from being (2) The impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensi- tive uses (as defined below) that could be established on unoccupied portions of the site. As a practical matter, such conflicts are not of great consequence, since the owner of the site has chosen to commit the site to surface mining. Surrounding zones (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, other mining or geothermal uses, personal landing strip uses, forest products processing uses, and hydroelectric uses. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and community and park -type uses. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing are conflicting in that full protection of those use would preclude continued mining at the site or cause limita- tions to be put on mining activities. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, open space, and scenic waterway values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and exacerbate an existing scar in the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. Site 356 is covered by an existing valid County site and reclamation plan, and site 355 would have to go through the County site plan process in order to receive approval. Assurances could be made that the reclamation will improve natural values to the extent practical. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 )9 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Although pumice is not as necessary a mineral as sand and gravel is, it is still a basic material and chances are that energy would be expended in obtaining a substitute material. There would be no negative effect in protecting the pumice resource. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of Goal 5 resources could preclude or curtail mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that pumice resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufac- turing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Pumice is not thought to be in short supply in the County. This coupled with the fact that pumice is not as essential a mineral as is aggregate would make for much less of an economic effect if conflicting resources were to be pro- tected. Still, pumice does have value as a material for building blocks and as an export for the local economy. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that pumice is in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social conse- quences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the pumice resource would not have the same kind of social consequence that failure to protect aggregate sources could. In general, whatever the social consequences of not allowing increased pumice mining at the various pumice sites, the effect would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, dust traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of scenic resources and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with mineral resources, wildlife resources and scenic resources 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 101 - 16 l4 are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy consequences from preserving the conflicting Goal 5 resources would be neutral for the reasons set forth in paragraph 8. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the Goal 5 resources and the aggregate resource are impor- tant relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Pumice has value for the economy of Central Oregon as an economic commodity. Given the quality and quantity of pumice present at this site, this is a significant pumice site. (b) This site has been a mining site of long standing. (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the Goal 5 resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the pumice resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, there is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project as set forth above. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would most likely have neutral or slightly positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some source in any event. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 11 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts can place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in rural sites such as this can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater overall energy consumption. Increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of_ AQctregate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting residential uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to develop- ment of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. (c) The use at Tumalo Park and sites along the Deschutes River are important as a major recreational site in the County. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 i.0l - 16Y7 existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 L01 1673 The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 Lot - :1679 aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 ,16 l`'jC (4 ( B l rt Ar TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #355 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. INVENTORY SHEET 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. MAP 5. DOGAMI RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 1/20/78 6. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION DATED 2/3/78 7. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION DATED 2/18/80 8. LETTER FROM TUMALO IRRIGATION DIST. ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 5/27/80 9. DOGAMI ON SITE INSPECTION REPORT 5/29/80 10. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 2/3/81 11. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/8/82 12. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/3/83 13. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/2/84 14. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/4/85 15. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/3/87 16. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/1/88 17. INVENTORY FROM CASCADE PUMICE 18. ABREVIATED STAFF REPORT 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 21. LETTER FROM BARBARA LYNCH & KEN & JOSEPHINE, JOHN DATED 8/10/89 22. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 23. PHOTOS 24. LETTER FROM DAVID DAVIDSON DATED 8/8/89 25. LETTER FROM DON MC FERRAN 8/15/89 3. BeGAMI eE"-�r-i aT.-T_r-iN P£-} miT—I'r.�£''-'&'/'b/9.'_ 6ct"� LITS L"-('�Yll'i,r�3=C..;1P1`- I 8. 9. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/8/82 10. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 2/3/81 11. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 2/18/8.0 12. DOGAMI REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/29/80 13. DOGAMI REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/3/78 14. INVENTORY OF TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT RESOURCES 15. DOGAMI RENEWAL APPLICATION 16. CASCADE PUMICE INVENTORY LIST 17. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/1/88 18. ABBREVIATED STAFF REPORT 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 20. NOTIFICATION MAPS 21. LETTER FROM KEN & JOSEPHINE JOHN 8/10/89 22. LETTER FROM CYNTHIA & SAMUEL DIBBINS 8/6/89 1 °" TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #356�., 1. EXHIBIT LIST, A, 2. TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT MINING RESOURCES 3. INVENTORY SHEET 4. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/3/87 5. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/4/85 6. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/2/84 7. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/3/83 8. 9. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/8/82 10. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 2/3/81 11. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 2/18/8.0 12. DOGAMI REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/29/80 13. DOGAMI REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/3/78 14. INVENTORY OF TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT RESOURCES 15. DOGAMI RENEWAL APPLICATION 16. CASCADE PUMICE INVENTORY LIST 17. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/1/88 18. ABBREVIATED STAFF REPORT 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 20. NOTIFICATION MAPS 21. LETTER FROM KEN & JOSEPHINE JOHN 8/10/89 22. LETTER FROM CYNTHIA & SAMUEL DIBBINS 8/6/89 1 °" w 23. MYLAR 24. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 25. LETTER FROM DAN KEARNS 5/26/89 26. PETITION 5/27/89 27. LETTER FROM DICK & JOANNE NORTHTON 5/29/89 28. LETTER FROM ROBERT LIST 5/29/89 29. LETTER FROM DAN KEARNS 5/30/89 30. LETTER FROM T.C. LYSTER 5/31/89 31. LETTER FROM DAN KEARNS 7/9/89 32. LETTER FROM RICHARD & JOANNE NORTHTON 7/29/89 33. LETTER FROM NANCY GLENN COLEMAN 8/4/89 34. LETTER FROM DIANA MCCLASKY 8/6/89 35. LETTER FROM DIANA MCCLASKY 8/6/89 GROUP II IN ELASTIC BAND SP -82-32 25. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN LETTER DATED 5/16/83 26. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT - SITE PLANS DATED 11/3/82 27. LETTER TO CASCADE PUMICE COMPANY DATED 10/29/82 28. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT DATED 10/19/82 29. LETTER TO SURFACE MINING NEIGHBORS DATED 9/30/82 30. RECLAMATION PLAN GUIDELINE AND FORMAT DATED 9/16/82 31. SAME AS ABOVE #30 32. LETTER FROM MARTIN E. HANSEN DATED 9/15/82 33. LETTER FROM MARTIN E. HANSEN DATED 8/30/82 34. LETTER TO SURFACE MINING NEIGHBORS DATED 8/25/82 2 i 101 - 1683 35. LETTER FROM AL & PAT TELLIN DATED 8/3/82 36. SITE PLAN TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED 8/2/82 37. SAME AS ABOVE #36 38. SAME AS ABOVE #36 39. RECEIPT FROM DESCHUTES COUNTY DATED 7/14/82 40. SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION DATED 7/12/82 41. LETTER FROM STEVEN J. SCHUSTER DATED 6/2/82 42. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/10/82 43. MAP 44. DIAGRAM 45. MAP 46. APPLICATION FILE SHEET 47. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT - SITE PLANS 48. SAME AS ABOVE #47 49. MAILING LIST FOR SITE PLAN TRANSMITTALS 50. ADDRESS LABELS FOR SITE PLAN SP -82-32 51. Le4ty, jvoyn bbFs, Lk--�, q- ib --Zi 52-. 1) Ytnc, YYtl7 53: i5oz,C6 0 Comrn"!a&,oner-s C1QGl:aan tYiinwjbE`- 3 X01 -1654 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 357 Site Number 357, occupying tax lot 1100, 1400 and 1300 in Township 16 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 36, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these sites. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject sites, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that these sites should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 357 is owned by Tumalo Irrigation District and is located one-half mile north of Tumalo on Tumalo Reservoir Road and encompasses the south half of Laidlaw Butte. Site 357 comprises 560 acres. The site is currently zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned SM, EFU-20 and MUA-10. This site was identified as containing aggregate, pumice and cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inven- tory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to deter- mine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 o_. -1 1685 In addition, testimony was received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the operator of the site and neighborhood residents. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The site contains 500,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate; 1 million cubic yards of cinders and 500,000 cubic yards of good quality pumice. 2. Site characteristics. The subject site is a historic mine which has had mining activity for at least 20 years. The site is located in the area of two pumice mining sites. (Site nos. 355 and 356) The site encompasses the top and southerly flank of Laidlaw Butte. The surrounding area consists primarily of hobby farms which are 20-40 acres in size. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range, with medium frequency of use. The surrounding properties all have a Wildlife Area combining zone, indicating that this area is part of the Tumalo winter deer range. There is also medium sensitive raptor use in the area. Neigh- borhood residents testified to seeing eagles in the area. 2. Open space. The surrounding zoning of EFU-20 and EFU- 40 indicates high open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION SITE NO. 357 c'+ (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has characterized the impact of noise on deer at this site as medium. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would have an adverse impact on wildlife, open space and scenic resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the SM, EFU-20, EFU-40, and MUA-10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) The Board finds that the site is already committed to surface mining and that the existing surface mining conflicts with other allowed and conditional uses in the SM zone in that occupation of the surface area of the site for mining prevents other uses from being established. (2) The impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensi- tive uses (as defined below) that could be established on unoccupied portions of the site. As a practical matter, such conflicts are not of great consequence, since the owner of the site has chosen to commit the site to surface mining. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 Surrounding zones (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, other mining or geothermal uses, personal landing strip uses, forest products processing uses, and hydroelectric uses. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and community and park -type uses. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing are conflicting in that full protection of those use would preclude continued mining at the site or cause limita- tions to be put on mining activities. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, open space, and scenic waterway values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and exacerbate an existing scar in the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Enerav Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Although pumice is not as necessary a mineral as sand and gravel is, it is still a basic material and chances are that energy would be expended in obtaining a substitute material. There would be no negative effect in protecting the pumice resource. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of Goal 5 resources could preclude or curtail mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 0l 1689 displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that pumice, cinders and aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Pumice is not thought to be in short supply in the County. This coupled with the fact that pumice is not as essential a mineral as is aggregate would make for much less of an economic effect if conflicting resources were to be pro- tected. Still, pumice does have value as a material for building blocks and as an export for the local economy. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that pumice is in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social conse- quences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the pumice resource would not have the same kind of social consequence that failure to protect aggregate sources could. In general, whatever the social consequences of not allowing increased pumice mining at the various pumice sites, the effect would not be great. The importance of aggregate is outlined in the comprehensive plan. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, dust traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of scenic resources and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with mineral resources, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy consequences from preserving the conflicting Goal 5 resources would be neutral for the reasons set forth in paragraph 8. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The value of aggreage is clear and outlined in the comprehensive plan. The Board finds that based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the Goal 5 resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: 6 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 357 ..�: s,li 1 o► l - 16U0 (a) Pumice has value for the economy of Central Oregon as an economic commodity. Given the quality and quantity of pumice present at this site, this is a significant pumice site. (b) This site has been a mining site of long standing. (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the Goal 5 resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the pumice resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, there is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 1011 — 1bu1 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project as set forth above. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would most likely have neutral or slightly positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some source in any event. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 11 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts can place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in rural sites such as this can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 t(j-1 1692 supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater overall energy consumption. Increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting residential uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to develop- ment of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. (c) The use at Tumalo Park and sites along the Deschutes River are important as a major recreational site in the County. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 iol - 1693 (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 ; 1)0 \. iii -:1694 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 s�- TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #357 iol 1" 1695 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE MAP 3. LETTER FROM TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT DATED 5/27/8 4. ABBREVIATED STAFF REPORT 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. NOTIFICATION MAPS 7. MAP 8. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 3/1/88 9. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/1/88 10. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 8/27/87 11. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 3/5/87 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/26/87 13. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/4/85 14. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/24/84 15. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/16/83 16. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/3/83 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 4/9/82 18. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/4/82 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/21/81 20. APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 4/22/81 21. TABLE REGARDING DISTRICT OWNED LANDS 22. INFORMATION TABLE SUBMITTED BY CASCADE PUMICE CO. 23. LETTER FROM JANET L. BOETTCHER DATED 5/27/80 24. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/7/78 25. REPORT OF ON—SITE INSPECTION 26. MYLAR 27. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 28. LETTER FROM PAT & AL TELLIN 8/14/89 29. LETTER FROM BOB BARSS 8/15/89 30. PHOTOGRAPHS 32 3oa-rd � Comms ��ione-� d2L�Sia� m ��:�-E�s J(),I - 1697 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 358 Site Number 358, occupying tax lots 200, 300, 1100, 1101, 1103, 1200 and 1301 in Township 16 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 32D, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that prelimin- ary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 358 comprises approximately 5 acres and is located north of Highway 20 West in Tumalo. The site is owned by Pat Gisler and is zoned RSR -M. Surrounding property is zoned RSR -M and RSC. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 -to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 101 - 1693 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site, a letter and testimony from Pat Gisler and numerous letters in opposition from surrounding property owners. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of aggregate which ODOT specifications for road material. The Board's inventory findings on this site are set forth in the inventory ordinance, Deschutes County Ordinance No. 90-025. 2. Site Characteristics. This is a small site located north of the Bend Aggregate plant in Tumalo across Highway 20 West. Access to the site is off of Cook Avenue. The site is essentially level and several feet below the elevation of Highway 20 West, which makes the southern boundary of the site. The site is currently developed with an old house next to the highway. The newly remodeled Tumalo mall building is located to the east of the site. The surround- ing neighborhood is made up of the Bend Aggregate plant across Highway 20 to the north, numerous houses and commer- cial within one-half mile and is located near the middle of the Tumalo rural service center. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as having wildlife values. The Board finds that there are no specific wildlife values on the site due to its proximity to Highway 20 West and the considerable amount of residential and commercial development in the area. 2. Open space values. The subject property is within an LM corridor along Highway 20. However, the LM designa- tion does not include the subject property. The site is readily visible from the highway since it is located below the highway grade. The Board finds that it would not be possible to screen the site from view of the highway. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and testimony from surrounding residents, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Testimony from area residents raised the concern that fugitive dust emissions from the site and trucks hauling material away from the site could interfere with the views from Highway 20. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, and accounting for topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact open space values in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the RSR -M and RSC zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, and processing) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. Considerable testimony in the record indicates the potential for significant impacts on the Tumalo rural service center due to the number of dwelling units in the area. Nearly the entire Tumalo rural service center in within one-half mile of this site. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 .. )CP Loll - 1100 2. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. 3. Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. This could impact all uses in the RSR -M and RSC zones, except that agricultural uses could be made on the unexcavated portions of the property. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, all possible uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. This problem is amplified by the small size and triangular shape of the site. Requiring setbacks of 250 feet from all existing conflicting uses on surrounding properties would significantly restrict surface mining at the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and open space do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create unsightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on open space values. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on the surround property owners due to the close proximity to numerous small lots. The Board finds that it would not be possible to adequately mitigate these impacts in an area with such a high level of existing development. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that preservation of this site would likely have overall positive energy consequences due to the fact that this site is located close to development activities. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 L 0' - 1.702 not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The Board finds that given the small lot size and the setbacks necessary to reduce con- flicts, this site would not contribute significantly to the amounts of aggregate available in the County. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimitable to the protection of open space and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggre- gate resource, wildlife resources and open space resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site could involve increased haulage distances of aggregate materials to the development projects occurring in the Tumalo area. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would therefore more likely than not have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources values at the site are 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 101 - IYU3 relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: a. The existence of the LM corridor along Highway 20 could be a conflicting resource value. The Board finds that it is not possible to screen the subject site from view of persons travelling on Highway 20 West. b. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. Therefore, the Board finds that the existing scenic resource should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The Board finds that while the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of sur- rounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 0 1 04 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by residents of the surrounding area, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, blasting, and fugitive dust produced by the proposed surface mine. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals could have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to development sites are positive since the Bend Aggregate processing site is located across Highway 20 to the south. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 13 above. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments in the Tumalo area would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, in- creased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting Uses. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 it ,^ / i P. 1: Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. THe lot is a small one and after accounting for set- backs to help reduce conflicts, there would be very little resource available to mine. C. Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commit- ment is accompanied by economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 24. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting open space resource and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate, which com- bined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 w" I (,) ,I - 17 0 6 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 361 Site Number 361, occupying tax lot 2800 in Township 16 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 22C, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 361 comprises approximately 41 acres and is located on the southwest end of Long Butte, approximately one - mile northwest of Deschutes Junction. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Division and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10 ane MUA-10. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 700,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located just off the end of Kiowa Road along the southern flanks of Long Butte. This is an existing cinder pit which has been heavily used in the past. The unexcavated portion of the site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. To the west and north of the site are two smaller cinder pits. Further to the west and north in Whispering Pines subdi- vision. This subdivision is sparsely developed with mobile homes and site -built homes. Some subdivision homes to the east overlook the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. Long Butte is readily visible from the surrounding area. The adjacent EFU-20 and EFU-40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 i0l 1 108 indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 and EFU-20 surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and EFU-20 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 _L011 - 1709 The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 i [� .l -, 1 110 mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97 and Deschutes Market Road, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 _i J *r the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimitable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 0*)8 1112 important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 I () .I - 1 113 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con - 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 1114 flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 14 b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 t x�'i. i0l - I-11-1 The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #361 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 4. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/11/87 5. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/25/86 6. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/1/85 7. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/25/85 8. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/12/84 9. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/20/83 10. REPORT -OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/17/83 11. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/2/83 12. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/2/82 13. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 9/24/81 14. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/20/81 15. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/8/80 16. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/1/77 17. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/16/88 18. GRANT OF. TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/17/86 FOR E.W. BEAVER 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 20. NOTIFICATION MAPS 21. MYLAR 22. LETTER FROM DAN GRIGGS 8/15/89 23. LETTER FROM MARY BOUNBOW 8/2/89 24. LETTER FROM JACK SHUGART 8/7/89 25. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 26. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/15/89 2 c SURFACE MLNING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Map 3 - Property description TAI;I,IF OF CONI'FNTS 4 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 9/11/87 Grant of Limited Exemption issued 9/25/86 i 6 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 10/1/85 s~ 7 - Report of On-site Inspection dated 3/25/85 8 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 9/12/84 9 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 9/20/83 10 - Report of On-site Inspection dated 6/17/83 11 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/2/83 12 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/2/82 13 - Report of On-site inspection dated 9/24/81 14 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 2/20/81 15 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 2/28/80 16 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/1/77 t, 2n � . ee C� BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY In the Matter of the Determination of the Environmental, Social, Energy, and Economic Consequences of the Use of Inventory Site No. 368, the "Twin Bridges" For Surface Mining FINDINGS Findings, Decision, And Program To Implement Goal 5 The Twin Bridges Site, hereinafter referred to as Site No. 368, also described as Tax ID No. 161220200, 201, 202, came before the Board of Commissioners ("Board") for hearing on May 31, 1989. On May 31, 1989, a preliminary decision was made on this site. By adoption of these Findings, Decision and Program to Implement Goal 5, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board is to determine whether Site No. 368, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations as Surface Mining ("SM"). For the reasons given below, the Board determines that Site No. 368 should be so classified. 1. Preliminary Findings 1 Site No. 368 was placed on the Deschutes County's Goal 5 Inventory for Mineral and Aggregate Resources by Ordinance No. 88-039 and as amended by Ordinance No. 90-025. Public hearings on the inventory were conducted by the Deschutes County Hearings Officer during June 1988. In September, 1988, the Hearings Officer made a recommendation to the Board on the County's inventory. The Board conducted hearings on the inventory on October 11, 1988 and on December 14, 1988 when the inventory was adopted. 2 Thereafter, pursuant to OAR 660-16-005 and 660-16-010, the County conducted further hearings to identify conflicts with the inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites, to determine the ESEE consequences and to develop a program to achieve Goal 5. 3 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-000 et sea, these Findings, Decision and Program Implementing Goal --5 outline the County's reasons and explain the County's program implementing Goal 5 and are made a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 1 _i. 01 -­ 1722 2. Applicable Criteria 1 The criteria applicable to the decision are Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rule, OAR 660-16-010 et seg. To the extent that other Statewide Planning Goals are applicable, appropriate findings have been made in Ordinance No. 90-029, which adopts the Findings, Decisions and Programs Implementing Goal 5 for each of the inventoried aggregate resource sites. By this reference said findings are incorporated herein. 2 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-005 and 660-16-010, once an aggregate and mineral resource site has been placed on the County's Goal 5 inventory, the County must identify conflicting uses which could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource. Both the impacts of the conflicting uses on the resource site and the resource's impacts on the conflicting uses must be considered in the determination of the ESEE consequences. The ESEE analysis enables the County to explain why decisions are made for specific sites. The Goal 5 rule then requires the County to develop a program to achieve the goal by resolving the conflicts in any one of three ways: protect the resource site, by allowing conflicting uses fully, or by limiting conflicting uses. 3 By Ordinance No. 90-014, the County amended the Deschutes County surface mining ordinance, Ordinance No. PL -15. Ordinance No. 90-014, incorporated herein by reference. This ordinance authorizes the development and use of inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites in accordance with appropriate standards. It also adopts the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone ("SMIA") which has application to all properties located within one-half mile of the boundary of an inventoried surface mining resource site (the "impact area"). The SMIA zone regulates uses within the impact area to reduce or resolve conflicts with inventoried surface mining sites. 4 Based on the ESEE analysis of Site No. 368, as detailed below, a program to achieve Goal 5 has been developed to balance the ESEE consequences so as to allow the conflicting uses, but in a limited way in order to protect the aggregate resource site to the desired extent. A 660-16-010(3) decision has been made. Ordinance No. 90-014 implements this decision by designating the allowed uses or activities permitted outright or conditionally and the specific standards and limitations applicable to such uses or activities on Site No. 368 and in the impact area. 3. Exhibits 1 Prior to the hearing on Site No. 368, a staff report was prepared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflicting resources and uses. The staff report identified conflicting resources and uses, their impacts, and evaluated the ESEE consequences of protecting the aggregate resource or in the alternative protecting the conflicting resources or uses. x 19 V, o:1 17'3 2 At the hearings on Site No. 368, testimony was received from the owner/operator as well as from other interested members of the public. Expert testimony was received on the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource, as well as on the impacts associated with the protection of the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. 3 The owner/operator submitted a surface mining plan detailing the operation, extraction and reclamation of the aggregate resource at Site No. 368. 4. Inventory 1 By Ordinance No. 90-025, Site No. 368 was placed on the County's Goal 5 Inventory for aggregate and mineral resources. By this reference, the Board incorporates the record, the Hearings Officer's report and the findings related to the inventory determination in Ordinance No. 90-025 of the County's Goal 5 aggregate resources. 2 Expert site-specific technical information was submitted for the inventory at Site No. 368 regarding the location of the aggregate resource, its quantity and its quality. 3 Based on that site-specific expert technical information on location, quantity and quality as detailed in this Section 4 and the findings for the overall inventory adopted in Ordinance No. 90- 025, the Board accepts the Hearings Officer's determination that Site No. 368 is a very significant site in the County's resource inventory. 4 The Board finds that the location component of the Goal 5 inventory decision includes a determination of the physical location of the resource on site, i.e., the area and dimensions of the resource location at the site and the location of the resource vis-a-vis its market destination. The latter is principally included in the determination of the site's significance. 5 The Board finds that Site No. 368 is located 2 miles from Tumalo on Cline Falls Road and 7 miles from Bend. It consists of approximately 200 acres. The site has access to Cline Falls Road and Twin Bridges Road. 6 Site No. 368's geographic location places it in close proximity to the County's major aggregate market area, i.e. the Bend urban area. Because of Site No. 368's geographic location, the aggregate need only be transported approximately 7 miles to its principal market destination and 3 miles to Bend Aggregate & Paving Co's aggregate processing facility. The relatively short haulage distance is an important consideration in determining the significance of a resource site because the cost of transporting aggregate is an important component in establishing the overall cost of the resource at the market area. The Board finds that the cost of transporting aggregate is approximately .25 per ton mile and that a haulage distance of 10-15 miles from the market area is the maximum area for which these resources can be commercially usable. The Board finds that it is appropriate to consider market location factors in determining relative significance given that, unlike other Goal 5 resources, the significance of aggregate resource is measured largely by their commercial value. Market location factors include the proximity to principal market for aggregate usage and to transportation routes. The close proximity of Site No. 368 to the resource's major market area, and its adequate access to transportation routes is a significant positive factor in the determination of the site's significance in the county's overall aggregate inventory. 7 With respect to the location of the resource on site, the Board accepts and believes the expert testimony of Century West Engineering Corporation ("Century West") which documented an on- site technical investigation of the location of the resource on site as well as the resource's quantity and quality. Century West's expert analysis included test pit excavations, material identification and assessment, and quantity calculations. 8 The location of the resource is substantiated by numerous test pits which were excavated on the site to explore the subsurface conditions. Fourteen separate test pits and excavation depths are documented in the Century West reports. The subsurface investigation was completed in 2 separate steps. The first investigation (February 5, 1988 report) explored the subsurface conditions in the areas identified as Terraces No. 2, No. 3A, and No. 3B, consisting of approximately 36 acres. The 14 test pits were excavated to depths of 5.0 to 13.5 feet below the ground surface. The total thickness of the aggregate resource was not determined in each test pit because of the limited reach of the backhoe. The Board accepts Century West's determination that the estimates of quantity are conservative and that more aggregate may be available than indicated by the estimates. The Board finds that Century West's analysis was a comprehensive review of the subsurface conditions of Terraces No. 2, 3A and 3B. The Board finds that beneath an overburden of silty sand ranging from 6 inches to 4 feet at Terrace No. 2, (average 1.3 feet) and an overburden thickness on Terraces 3A and 3B between 6 inches and 7 feet (average 2.7 feet), that gravel aggregate is the primary unit throughout the test pit depth. The Board finds that the gravel thickness is about 10 feet on Terrace No. 2, about 6.3 feet or greater on Terrace No. 3A, and about 4 feet on Terrace No. 3B. 9 The Board accepts Century West's conclusion that the gravel deposits in Terraces No. 2, 3A and 3B are a good source of aggregate and that Terrace No. 2 contains an estimated 316,000 cubic yards, Terrace No. 3A contains an estimated 133,000 cubic yards and Terrace No. 3B contains 32,000 cubic yards. 4 3 10 The second portion of the subsurface evaluation of the aggregate resource at Site No. 368 was conducted by Century West on Terrace No. 4, a terrace located to the south of Terrace No. 2 on the west side of the river, the same elevation and distance from the river with the same depositional environment of Terrace No. 2 (April 5, 1988, report). The Board accepts the conclusion of Century West that the aggregate at Terrace No. 4 is similar in size, distribution, composition and texture as Terrace No. 2. Two separate test pits were excavated in Terrace No. 4. The test pits were approximately 10 feet in depth and the aggregate was materially consistent to the bottom of the pits. At the time of Century West's field work, the test pits were partially filled, but some of the gravel remained exposed. Based on the calculation of the area comprised by Terrace No. 4, Century West estimated an average overburden thickness of 1.3 feet and an average thickness of the gravel strata of 9.8 feet. The Board accepts Century West's estimated quantity of aggregate at Terrace No. 4 of 87,000 cubic yards. 11 The Board recognizes that the county's consulting geologist, Mr. Robert J. Deacon, retained by the county to review specific aggregate sites, concluded that Site No. 368 contained 632,413 cubic yards, a greater quantity of aggregate than that estimated by Century West. The Deacon calculation was made by determining from a photograph the surface area of the mining site by planimeter survey methods using an average thickness of the aggregate deposits documented by the Century West test pits on the site. Because the Board finds that Century West's estimates of quantity are based on a site-specific evaluation of test pits conducted in the areas to be mined, the Board believes that that evidence is the best evidence of the aggregate resource. The Board accepts the Hearings Officer's determination, albeit conservative, that Site No. 368 contains 570,000 cubic yards of aggregate material. 12 The Board recognizes that letters were submitted by Mr. H.G. Schlicker & Associates (Schlicker) which address the quantity of aggregate resource at Site No. 368. The Schlicker reports are not premised on a subsurface on-site evaluation. On the basis of his review of the Century West Reports and the Department of Geology Report of On -Site Inspection, I.D. No. 09-0146, Mr. Schlicker estimated an aggregate quantity of 346,296 cubic yards. The Schlicker estimate is lower than that of Century West and Deacon and was arrived at by reducing the area to be mined due to his judgment that (1) certain areas contained too little aggregate to be economically mined; ( 2 ) certain areas had too much overburden compared to the underlying aggregate to be economically mined; and (c) certain areas were not included in the DOGAMI permit area. 13 The Board finds that for establishing its aggregate inventory, and in determining the quantity of the resource at an aggregate resource location, the location and quantity of the resource within the actual resource area should be calculated, and 5 N<�►.., 10'i - 1726 that the location and quantity of aggregate resource should not be premised on whether a DOGAMI permit covers a portion or any of a resource site. For inventory purposes, the quantity of resource is determined by the boundaries of the actual resource deposit, as opposed to estimating the resource, based on a "permit" area. Pursuant to Goal 5, the determination of the County's inventory is based on location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource. Possible environmental or economic considerations are more properly a part of the ESEE analysis. Furthermore, DOGAMI permit conditions can be changed, as is indicated by the addition of Terrace 3B of Site No. 368 to the DOGAMI permit for Site No. 368. The assertion that areas cannot be economically mined substitutes Mr. Schlicker's judgment for that of the owner/operator. In addition, the Board finds that overburden from the mining operation can be used for reclamation of the site. 14 With respect to the quality of the aggregate at Site No. 368, the Board accepts the expert report of Century West which documented the results of durability and soundness tests on the resource at Site No. 368 (June 3, 1988 report). The test results of the sample aggregate from the test pit samples from the site document that the aggregate quality at Site No. 368 exceeds the basic commercial requirements for abrasion, degradation and soundness, which have been established by the Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Division (ODOT), as adopted by this Board in Ordinance No. 90-025. 15 In determining the quality of the resource at Site No. 368 relative to other aggregate resource sites in the county, the Board incorporates its finding regarding the standards of relative aggregate quality as set forth in Ordinance No. 90-025, Findings No. 24 and 27. Those findings establish the categories of the aggregate resource quality under ODOT standards and defines the quality categories established by the County in determining relative quality significance of aggregate resource sites in the inventory. Based on the testing of the aggregate resource at Site No. 368, as referenced in finding 4.14, the Board finds that the aggregate resource at Site No. 368 is "excellent," meaning "of superior grade." In terms of the relative significance of Site No. 368 with respect to quantity, the Board incorporates its finding No. 25 from Ordinance 90-025. In addition, the Board finds that the relative significance of Site No. 368's quantity is enhanced by its close proximity to the major commercial market. 16 The Board finds that the aggregate demand in the County is projected at 2 million cubic yards per year. (Ordinance No. 90-028, incorporated herein). For the planning period of 20 years, the available aggregate inventory resulting from this inventory process is approximately 45 million cubic yards. Only approximately 6.2 million cubic yards of that inventory is located within 10 to 15 miles of the Bend urban area, the major market for the aggregate product. Of that, only approximately 1.3 million cubic yards, including Site No. 368, is of excellent quality (See, 6 if.).1 - ItZI Exhibit G and H of Ordinance 90-025). The Board finds that Site No. 368 is a significant quantity of superior grade aggregate and that its relative significance for quantity is enhanced by its close proximity to the major commercial market. 17 Based on the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource at Site No. 368, the Board finds that Site No. 368 is the 15th most significant site in the county's overall aggregate inventory. (Exhibit H, Ordinance No. 90-025). 5. Site Conditions 1 Site No. 368 is owned by CLR, Inc., an affiliate of Bend Aggregate & Paving Co. The property consists of approximately 200 aces. It is zoned Surface Mining Reserve ( SMR) and has been so zoned since 1979. The State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) has issued a surface mining permit for Site No. 368. The site is adjacent to the Deschutes River, east of Cline Falls Road, approximately 3 miles north of Tumalo and 7 miles from Bend. It is 3 miles from Bend Aggregate & Paving's processing plant in Tumalo. 2 Site No. 368 is a rural site, adjacent to the Deschutes River. It include riparian habitat immediately adjacent to the river, cultivated pastures on the lower benches, and juniper woodlands on the steeper slopes and upper benches on both sides of the river. Most of the site is currently fenced pasture lands. The remaining area is vegetated with scattered junipers, sage brush and various grasses. The elevation of the pasture lands range from 10 to 20 feet above the river. The average elevation of the upper terraces is approximately 40 feet. The river banks are low, flat, stable and well vegetated. The pasture land is sprinkle irrigated. Irrigation water is drawn directly from the river with a Swalley Irrigation District water right. 3 The areas of Site No. 368 proposed for surface mining under the site's mining operational plan can be divided into three distinct areas. Terrace No. 2 Terrace No. 2 is a 35 -acre segment of the property located on the east side of the river. It is mainly pasture grass; there are no trees on this part of the property. Terrace No. 2 is bordered by the Deschutes River on the west and by the sloping upper terraces (Terraces No. 3A and 3B) on the east. The northern boundary of Terrace No. 2 is the Twin Bridges Road. Extensive native vegetation screens the Deschutes River from the proposed mining area. The riparian zone includes willows, alders, junipers, etc. The surface mining plan 7 ' ►;�W 101 1!2'8 provides for the maintenance and preservation of the riparian zone vegetation and a minimum river setback of 100 feet. Terrace No. 4 Terrace No. 4 is a 5 -acre parcel located to the south of Terrace No. 2. It is on the west side of the river. Like Terrace No. 2, Terrace No. 4 is mainly pasture land, vegetated with uncultivated grass. Terraces No. 3A and 3B Terraces No. 3A and 3B consist of 15 acres. These terraces, found in the northeast part of the property, are at a higher elevation than the pasture land terraces. These upper terraces on the east side are vegetated with scattered juniper and pine, rabbit brush and sage brush. The remaining areas of the site, consisting of 145 acres, will remain undisturbed. The subsurface of the property is characterized by top soil and silty sand which ranges in depth from 1.3 to 2.7 feet. Below this is a deposit of aggregate material (sand, gravel, and cobble) of 4 to 10 feet in depth, underlying the aggregate deposit is a lower boundary stratum of ash and pumice or bedrock. 6. Vicinity Conditions 1 The general vicinity of the site is bounded by Cline Falls Road in the west and natural areas along the eastern border. It is generally a rural agricultural area although there are some residential acreages in the vicinity. The Deschutes River bisects the property. To the north are residentially developed properties. On the west side of the river, the property climbs up steeply from the river to a plateau. There are few residential properties located on the rimrock above the river. The area on the east side of the river is just slightly higher in elevation than the river and remains generally in its natural state. 2 There is an abandoned cabin, a shed, and corrals near the southern portion of the property. An irrigation water access traverses the property along the river. Irrigation pumps are located along the west side of the river near the center of the westerly plateau. At the north end of the property is the Twin Bridges Road which crosses the Deschutes River. Another bridge crossing the river is located near the southern end of the eastern plateau. The bridge has been relocated approximately 50 feet to the north, removing in the old bridge. An existing road enters the site from the north and west. The site is fenced. The property is otherwise undeveloped. 8 7. Mininq and Reclamation Plan 1 The Board finds that for Site No. 368, the owner/operator has submitted a surface mining operational and reclamation plan. The Board also finds that certain permits and agreements, which are more fully described in Section 9 below, have been entered into by the owner/operator or issued by state and federal agencies, which condition the operational and reclamation plan. The Board accepts the site's mining operation plan, including material extraction, removal and reclamation procedures as conditioned by the permits and agreements for purposes of analyzing impacts and ESEE consequences. 2 The mining operation consists of excavation, removal and reclamation. No on-site processing, crushing, or screening of the aggregate material is proposed at Site No. 368. Of the total site area of 200 acres, a total of approximately 55 acres will be mined, with the remaining 145 acres left in their natural condition. The areas proposed to be mined under the plan include Terraces 2, 3A, 3B and 4. Approximately 5 to 6 acres will be mined each year which will yield annually approximately 100,000 cubic yards of usable aggregate. At any one time, only 10 percent of the total mine site area will be subject to surface mining. Access to the site will be from the existing access road at the southwest corner of the property from Cline Falls Road. Trucks associated with the surface mining activity will not use Twin Bridges Road, the road used by area residents. 3 The method of excavation starts with the removal of the topsoil. A dragline will be placed on the site to remove the topsoil in approximately 20 foot -wide strips. After the topsoil is removed and deposited on the floor of the pit, the sand and gravel is loaded into trucks for transportation off site by the dragline. Water spraying will be provided to curtail any fugitive dust resulting from the excavation and transport processes. The drag line operation will continue across the site to remove topsoil and to expose the aggregate material. As the excavation operation proceeds across the site, topsoil is left on the floor of the excavated area. Fugitive dust will be naturally curtailed by the moisture in the material and further controlled by watering. The loaded trucks will then travel on the on-site gravel road to the access road for transport for processing off-site. The mining operation will include one drag line excavator, a front end loader, and three to four trucks for transport of the aggregate off-site. A water truck, available at all times, will sprinkle the hauling road to eliminate dust. The equipment used to redistribute the topsoil, includes a bulldozer and grader. The redistribution of the topsoil will be coordinated with the reclamation of the area as the excavation progresses on the site. 4 A setback of 25 feet will be maintained from all surface mining operations to the property lines. A setback of 100 feet 9 ¢:�> �(? 11J0 will be maintained from the Deschutes River. All vegetation located in the riparian zone along the river will be maintained. 5 Access to the mining area will be from the existing access from Cline Falls Road at the southerly end of the property. This will be the route used by employees and trucks removing material from the site. The existing Twin Bridges Road that provides access to residences to the north and east of the site will not be used by traffic associated with the surface mining operation. 6 Approximately 100,000 cubic yards of aggregate products will be removed from the site annually. Assuming 100,000 cubic yards is removed during an average of 200 working days per year, an average of 500 cubic yards per day, or 33.3 - 15 cubic yard loads per day, or 6.6 trucks per hour is the estimated traffic impact. 7 Reclamation will occur annually as each five -acre area is depleted. When the aggregate material is removed, the topsoil will be redistributed across the excavated area with a bulldozer and grader. The area will then be seeded with grasses for a pasture environment. The reclamation work will proceed concurrently with mining. After reclamation is completed, the mine area will be a pasture slightly lower than the unmined areas at its perimeter, with boundary slopes not exceeding 3:1. 8. Conflicts Analysis 1 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-005, the Board has identified conflicts with the inventoried aggregate resource at Site No. 368. The conflicting uses, i.e., those uses which, if allowed, could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource site, have been identified primarily by examining both the existing uses and the uses allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the County for the site and the impact area. In addition, conflicting resource uses have been identified by a review of the other inventoried Goal 5 resources in the County's Comprehensive Plan for the site and the impact area. 2 The Board finds that the conflicting uses consist of 1) resource conflicts, i.e., other Goal 5 inventoried resources on the site and the impact area (the "resource conflicts"), and 2) uses which exist or are allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the County for the site and the impact area (the "land use conflicts"). Resource Conflicts 3 The County's Comprehensive Plan inventories "open space" and "areas of special concern" in Table 1, page 108 of its Plan. Neither the area encompassing Site No. 368, nor the Deschutes River is inventoried as "open space" or as an "area of special concern"; however, the Plan recognizes the general desirability of .rte 10 maintaining areas in their natural state, including areas designated for future aggregate extraction. Maintaining the countryside in its natural state, including agricultural lands, pasture, and forested areas is recognized in the County's Plan as an important component of open -space planning. 4 The Board recognizes that open space areas include a broad range of areas left in their natural state, and, as noted in the County's Comprehensive Plan at page 103, can include mineral and aggregate sites as left in their natural state prior to productive mining. The Plan recognizes that, during mining operations, portions of the mining site may not normally be available as open space, but that such sites will be valuable as open space following mining reclamation. 5 As a part of its comprehensive planning process, the County undertook a study of the Deschutes River corridor and adopted the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study ("River Study") as a part of its Comprehensive Plan. For this portion of the Deschutes River (approximately River Mile 155), the River Study generally identifies open space as an identified Goal 5 resource. The River Study Staff Report states that conservation of open space is important in this stretch of the river because it (1) enhances recreational opportunities; (2) enhances land needed for agricultural purposes; (3) is an interim use for those areas identified as having non-renewable aggregate resources; and (4) helps preserve historic sites. The Board finds that open space is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. 6 The Board finds that Site No. 368 is not inventoried by the County's Comprehensive Plan as an inventoried fish habitat or wildlife area and habitat. It is not located in the County's inventory of Big Game Sensitive Areas or as an inventoried Wildlife Habitat Sensitive Area. The Board finds that the County Plan's inventory of Wildlife Habitat includes "Riparian Zone" as an inventoried resource including the area along the Deschutes River. Thus, the Board finds that the riparian zone is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. The Board further finds that the Deschutes River is inventoried by the County's Plan as a fish habitat and wildlife area and habitat area. Thus, the Board finds that the fish and wildlife resource is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. 7 The Board finds that the Deschutes River is a recognized waterway in the County. While the County does not have an inventory of areas constituting "waterways, wetlands, watersheds and groundwater resources as categorized under Goal 5, the County Plan identifies the Deschutes River Basin as a major watershed in the County. As a result, the Deschutes River, as an identified water area, is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. The Board finds that no significant Goal 5 groundwater resources exist at Site No. 368, and that the site is not so I , 01 1 -13 2 inventoried, so there is no groundwater resource conflict with the inventoried aggregate resource. 8 The Board finds that Site No. 368 is not an inventoried area designated as an "outstanding scenic view or site" under the County Plan's inventory of "areas of special concern" wherein the County inventories its areas of special importance, outstanding, or unique scenic resources. However, the Board finds that the River Study includes river corridors that are included in a state scenic water inventory as an outstanding view or site, so the resource of outstanding scenic view or site is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. 9 The Board finds that Site No. 368 is not the location of any inventoried historic area, site, structure or object or cultural area under the County's Plan so that the resources of historic and cultural areas are not a resource conflict to the aggregate resource. The Board finds that the River Study Staff Report lists inventoried historical or historic areas along this portion of the Deschutes River Corridor, but that no such inventoried areas are located at Site No. 368. While the Deschutes River corridor was a major transportation corridor for early native Americans travelling between The Dalles and Klamath Falls, Site No. 368 is not a location of any inventoried cultural or historic areas or sites. 10 The Board finds that the segment of the Deschutes River adjacent to Site No. 368 is a part of the State Scenic Waterway, an identified Goal 5 resource. Thus, the Board finds that the resource of state scenic waterway is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. Conflicting Land Uses 11 The Board finds that the potential for conflicting land uses exist with the inventoried aggregate resource site. The conflicting land uses have been identified primarily by examining the uses allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the county on the site and in the impact area. The Board finds that the zoning districts of Multiple Use Agricultural ("MUA"), Surface Mining ("SM"), Surface Mining Reserve ("SMR"), Rural Service Residential -5 ("RSR -5"), Conventional Housing Combining ("CH"), Floodplain ("FP") and Exclusive Farm Use -20 ("EFU-2011) are the broad zoning districts established by the County within the impact area of Site No. 368 which allow land uses which may conflict with the inventoried aggregate resource. The Board incorporates by reference the uses allowed outright and conditionally in those zoning districts as potential conflicting land uses with the inventoried resource site. (Ordinance No. PL -15, Sections 4.100, 4.110, 4.060, 4.150, 4.210, 4.200 and 4.040.) 12 12 The Board accepts the staff report's identification of the existing rural residential uses and housing uses as existing conflicting land uses in the impact area of Site No. 368. 9. Other Permits/Agreements 1 The Board finds that for Site No. 368 other state and federal agencies have issued permits for the surface mining operation and agreements have been executed between the owner/operator and various parties which are relevant to the inventoried aggregate resource. 2 Department of Transportation. Parks and Recreation Department. The Parks and Recreation Department (Parks) has approved an application by the owner/operator of Site No. 368 for its proposed surface mining operation within the state scenic waterway. In concluding that the project does not substantially impair the natural beauty of the scenic waterway, Parks considered the following factors in reaching its conclusion: 1. No mining activity has been conducted on the site prior to notification or since the Scenic Waterway Act went into effect in December of 1988. The division received adequate notice of intent to change land use on January 20, 1989. 2. In the past and prior to Scenic Waterway designation, the site had been cleared of sagebrush and juniper and used for pasture. It is a relatively level alluvial plain above the river. The excavation sites are situated on the east side of the river (34.5 acres) and the west side (5.5 acres). 3. There is healthy riparian vegetation of willows and other native plants along the riverfront that would provide some screening of the project from view from the river. 4. The site is surrounded in the background by high rimrock to the west with single family residences perched overlooking the site. A county road and bridge cross the river and run adjacent to the property on the north end. To the east, the ground rises quickly and is dotted with juniper. Just to the north on the opposite side of the road from the project is a ranch, pasture and single family residences situated in a planned community 13 development -- Deschutes River Ranch. To the south the river canyon narrows to rimrock with residences on the upper plateaus. Because of the amount of development already present in the area, it is likely that this portion of the river would be classified as a Recreational or Scenic River Area when the current management plan is amended to cover the newly designated areas. See OAR 736-40-040. 5. The project will consist of successive 5 -acre excavations with top soil being stockpiled nearby. Each excavated area would reach a depth of ten feet at maximum and not penetrate the water table. Reclamation of each 5 -acre tract is planned before a new parcel is excavated. It is expected the project will be complete within five to six years at which time full reclamation will also be completed. There will be no large "open pits" associated with the project. When the project is entirely complete the site will have been lowered about eight feet, leveled, and reseeded with pasture grass and irrigated. The land will be put back to the same use as existed prior to the gravel extraction operation. Agreements that have been reached between [the owner/operator] and Deschutes County regarding the final disposition and use of this property are intended to insure its long term use as open space. 6. There is an abandoned bridge which would be replaced and used for gravel trucks to cross the river to get to the processing plant at Tumalo. The old bridge and its abutments will be removed, a new bridge put in place at the same site. All instream work for the new bridge will require approval from the Division of State Lands and the State Land Board. [The owner/operator] agreed to add additional riparian plantings of willow and red osier dogwood to the bridge abutments and to grade and reseed all bare soil resulting from construction of the bridge. In addition, the bridge is to be high enough above the surface of the water to allow boat passage beneath. 14 3 The bridge is a low profile concrete structure that will not add any additional instream structures then what exists currently. Visual impacts will be minimal since no new elements are being added to the scene. Deschutes County has previously approved the bridge replacement project. 7. The character of the river in this area is typical of pool, non -rapid sections of the Deschutes. The current is swift and there is limited public access or boating opportunities along this stretch of river. 8. There will be no gravel processing (washing, screening, or crushing) activities conducted on the site. All this work will be done at Bend Aggregate's existing plant at Tumalo. Only a dragline, bulldozer and water truck will be on the excavation site. No addition structures are planned. Trucks will remove the excavation material from the site via an access road through the property and to the county road leading to Tumalo. The road that currently exists will be improved slightly with rock to stabilize it. The road will be watered periodically during the dry months to control dust. No more than three to four trucks are expected to be working in the area at any one time. The project is to operate under restricted hours and days of operation. No weekend or holiday work is expected and hours of operation are limited to daylight hours. 9. The excavation areas are set back from 100 to 275 feet away from the river. In some areas the excavation will be screened from view from the river by topography. [The owner/operator has] agreed to plant additional riparian vegetation of willows and red osier dogwood to further screen the project from view from the river as well as to improve the riparian habitat conditions. In addition, [the owner/operator has] agreed to plant additional trees along the north boundary of the property adjacent to the county road in order to 15 - 1136 collect dust, provide noise barrier, and further screen the operation from view from the road. 10. We note that there is an archeological site near a planned extraction area on the southeast edge of the site at the toe of the slope. This area will not be disturbed. 11. It is apparent from [the] plan and our visits to the site that with the project set backs and since no crushing, washing, or processing of aggregate will be done on site that debris, silt, chemicals or other materials will not be discharged into or allowed to reach the river. In addition, we expect [the owner/operator] to comply with all appropriate Department of Environmental Quality regulations concerning the operation of this type and have so conditioned our concurrence. 12. Adjacent segments of the upper Deschutes River downstream of Twin Bridges have been designated as Scenic Waterway since 1987. Our concurrence with [the] project is consistent with the management plan currently in force on those portions of the upper Deschutes. 13. In order to ensure compatibility with other local, state or federal agencies we have conditioned our concurrence on [the] receipt of approval from other appropriate regulatory agencies. In the event [the] project plan changes in scope or scale, we must be notified and a new notification may be required. In addition, the Parks placed the following conditions on its approval: 1. All Deschutes County requirements shall be satisfied. 2. The minimum setback from the river for all operations will be 100 feet. In addition, all setbacks exceeding 100 feet as depicted in the Notification of Intent shall be maintained. 3. Additional vegetation shall be planted on the northwest corner of the site along 3 .A 16 * 4,'i k 0 U1 the river and along Twin Bridges Road in the current pasture area. An approved planting plan for these areas is required. Please note the sample plan. 4. All components of the existing bridge including those in the river must be removed from the site. 5. Vegetative screening shall be planted around both ends of the new bridge. An approved planting plan for these areas is required. Please note sample plan. 6. All existing vegetation between the project and the river must be maintained. Please notify Region 4 Parks Office prior to removing any trees or brush that screen the project from the view of the river. 7. The pasture grass needed for reclamation must be maintained for at least one year after the project is completed. Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) DOGAMI has issued a surface mining and reclamation permit for Site No. 368. In addition, DOGAMI, together with representatives of other associations, including the National Audubon Society conducted a site review of Site No. 368. The Board accepts the Report of the On -Site Inspection (DOGAMI report). The DOGAMI permit was approved for Site No. 368 with five conditions imposed. They are: 1. A minimum property line setback of 25 feet from the excavation shall be maintained. 2. Mining shall be initiated at the south end of the property and progress to the north to minimize visual impact. 3. The rimrock area vegetated with ponderosa pine between the upper and lower terraces to be mined on the east side of the river shall remain intact. 4. Weed control shall be maintained during reclamation. 17 5. If irrigation is not used to establish the reclamation seeding, ladak alfalfa should be substituted for nomad alfalfa because it is drought tolerant. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved the owner/operator's application to construct a new bridge at the southwestern end of the property, replacing an old bridge, so that truck traffic associated with the mining operation can enter and exit the site on the existing gravel road which accesses Cline Falls Road. By utilizing this access to the site, the trucks associated with the mining operation are not travelling on area roads utilized by residents. The Deschutes County Planning Department by and through its Hearings Officer issued a conditional use permit to authorize construction of the bridge in accordance with the County's land use approval process. The Division of State Lands also issued a permit authorizing construction of the bridge. 3 The Board finds that the surface mining operation at Site No. 368 is the subject of two separate agreements entered into by the owner/operator. These agreements were submitted to the Board at the hearing on this site. Conservation Agreement. In this agreement by and between the owner/operator and The Coalition for the Deschutes, Save the Canyon Committee, Trout Unlimited and Central Oregon Flycasters (Conservationists), the owner/operator and the Conservationists reached agreement on the surface mining use of the property. The owner/operator agreed to mine only the lower pasture lands, not the upper terraces, and not that portion of the lower terrace within 100 feet of the mean high water of the river, unless approved by the county. Further, when the aggregate resource is depleted from the property, the owner/operator has agreed to donate a perpetual conservation easement. The conservation easement will allow for public foot access for recreational purposes within 100 feet of the mean high water line of the river. Further, the entire property will be maintained only for agricultural or recreational purposes. No development of structures, residences, etc., will be allowed. Deschutes River Ranch Agreement. In an agreement between the Deschutes River Ranch, a development north of Site No. 368 and the owner/operator, the surface mining use of the property was agreed to by the parties. The owner/operator agreed to limit its surface mining activities generally to those areas not higher than 20 feet above the high water line of the Deschutes except for the pasture area adjoining both Swalley Road and Twin Bridges Road and, not to mine that area until the lower pasture lands have been mined and reclaimed with pasture grasses. The riparian zone shall be maintained. Specific terms were reached on the excavation and 18 ongoing reclamation and the agreement provides that upon completion of the mining activities, the area be returned to a use compatible with the surrounding properties. 4 The Board finds that these permits and agreements entered into the record for Site No. 368 modify the operational plan submitted by the owner/operator by restricting the mining operation from that originally proposed and by limiting the allowed future uses of the site. As a result, the ESEE analysis incorporates the terms and conditions of these permits and agreements. 10. ESEE Analysis Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource Over Resource Conflicts 1 This section of the findings addresses the ESEE consequences on the resource conflicts from protecting the aggregate resource. Section 11 addresses the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource from protecting the resource conflicts. Sections 12 and 13 analyze the ESEE consequences of the conflicts between land uses and the aggregate resource. Both the impacts on the aggregate resource and on the resource conflicts uses are considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. 2 Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences to the resource conflicts of open space, riparian area, fish habitat, waterway or area and the approved scenic waterway and outstanding views. To the extent that adverse environmental consequences result, the Board finds that the impacts on these resources can be minimized by the placement of operational restrictions on the protection of the aggregate resource so that such impacts are insignificant. 10.2.1 With respect to the open space resource, the Board finds that one of the purposes of conserving open space is to allow for an interim use for those areas identified as having non-renewable aggregate resources. The protection of this area for aggregate resource is consistent with the reasons articulated in the County's Comprehensive Plan regarding the conservation of open space. 10.2.2 The Board further finds that open space along the Deschutes River has been considered important in the River Study because it enhances recreational opportunities. The Board finds that only two (2) state parks exist in the vicinity of Site No. 368, and each park is in excess of five ( 5 ) miles from the site. Site No. 368 and its surrounding areas are privately owned, and public recreational access to the river is presently limited except at the bridges. The Board finds that the recreational opportunities offered by the river will not be significantly impacted by protecting the aggregate resource. No mining 19 activities will occur in the riparian zone along the river which extends along 80-90 percent of the river frontage, to a depth inland of 40 feet. A setback of 100 feet from the river is incorporated in the operational plan. The riparian zone substantially buffers and screens the site from any recreational users of the river along this site. In addition, the mining activities will occur at terraces 10-40 feet above the river, so that visual effects of the operation will be minimized. Thus, the Board finds that, to the extent that recreational enhancement is a value of the open space resource, the Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource will not significantly impact the open space resource. In fact, the Board finds that the recreational use along this stretch of the river will be enhanced in the long term by the donation of the conservation easement which will afford public access for hiking and fishing and the perpetual dedication of the property as open space agricultural or pasture lands. The conservation easement will prohibit the proliferation of rural residential development or other similar uses which generally diminishes the value of the open space resource by altering its natural state. Following reclamation to pasture lands, the area will be returned to its productive capacity as open space with increased recreational opportunities. 10.2.3 The second purpose articulated in the River Study Staff Report regarding the importance of conserving open space is that it enhances land need for agricultural purposes. The Board finds that Site No. 368 is primarily pasture land and is not cultivated for agricultural purposes. The surface mining activity as proposed will not significantly reduce agricultural lands within this stretch of the Deschutes River corridor. The activity, limited to only five (5) acres annually, with concurrent reclamation will not significantly reduce the area available for agricultural purposes. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report that agricultural use of the land may be enhanced following reclamation because the removal of the gravel and subsequent increase in water holding capacity of the soil may improve the pasture for agricultural purposes upon completion of the mining. Because the future topography of the site along the lower terraces will be relatively level terraces approximately 9 to 12 feet lower than at present, the area can be returned to productive agricultural pasture lands as open space. The Board finds that the stated purpose of conserving open space to enhance agricultural use is satisfied. 10.2.4 No inventoried historical sites or areas exist at Site No. 368, so the last articulated reason for conserving open space in the River Study Staff Report, preserving historic sites, is not applicable to this location. 10.2.5 The Board recognizes that the impacts of dust, noise and changes in the landscape associated with the extraction of the aggregate resource will negatively affect the visual appearance for a short term because the area is not left in its 20 «: 1 141 natural state. The loss of visual appeal diminishes the area's productive use as open space; however, the Board finds that the impacts on the open space resource can be substantially mitigated so that the impact on the open space resource is not significant. Site No. 368 is substantially screened by the riparian vegetation from any recreational users of the river, so the visual impact of the vegetation removal and the associated changes to the natural state will be limited for those users of the river. Further, the impacts to the natural state will be short-term. Surface mining is a transitional use, and the area can be reclaimed for open space resource use. By limiting the active mining area to 5 acres at any one time, the dust and noise associated with the surface mining activity that could adversely impact the open space resource will be minimized. Phasing will also minimize the amount of vegetation removal and landscape changes which impact the open space resource. Further, ongoing concurrent reclamation, irrigation, and planting will allow the depleted portions of the site to return to its productive capacity of open space in an accelerated fashion. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report and DOGAMI permit condition that by mining of the area from south to north, the excavation will be screened by topography from the Twin Bridges Road. The Board finds that the fugitive dust emissions produced as a result of the surface mining activities including the excavation and removal of the resource and the transportation of the resource from the site can have a negative impact on the visual values of the open space resource, if not controlled as a part of the surface mining activity. With respect to Site No. 368, the Board finds that the proposed surface mining plan incorporates operational measures to minimize dust emissions. The plan provides for the transportation of the material on an existing access road at the southwest corner of the property onto Cline Falls Road, so the trucks servicing the mining activity will not use the road used by area residents. The operational plan also incorporates the use of watering during each stage of the mining operating to minimize the generation of dust during operations. No processing or crushing of the aggregate is proposed at Site No. 368. The Board finds that an air quality report has been submitted from CH2M Hill which analyzed the impact of the mining operations on the air quality of the area. The Board accepts CH2M Hill's report that the sources with the most potential for particulate emissions include truck loading, trucks travelling on the on-site gravel road in dry weather, mud and soil trackout onto Cline Falls Road and road dust on Cline Falls Road. The Board further accepts CH2M Hill's report that the dust impacts will be periodic and can be minimized with implementation of responsive control measures as a part of the site's proposed operational plan including keeping truck speeds to less than 10 mph while on the 21 i I. ("'? 11 �S i 01 -, 1142 gravel roads, applying water or dust suppressants to the on-site gravel roads to prevent visible dust emissions, paving the last 200 feet of the access road at the intersection of Cline Falls Road, flushing the paved portions of Cline Falls Road and the access road to remove dust buildup and use of water sprays to prevent dust from the truck loading operation. With the implementation of control measures as a part of the site's proposed operational plan, the Board accepts CHZM Hill's conclusion that the surface mining operation should not have a significant impact on open space resource in terms of air quality. The Board further finds that the noise associated with surface mining operation can affect the open space resource. The Board accepts CHZM Hill's report that with the utilization of a muffler device on the exhaust of the crane, the noise levels of the operation meet the applicable DEQ criteria and that the employment of other noise mitigation measures such as a berm can be used, if necessary, to meet the DEQ noise level requirements. 10.2.6 With respect to the resource conflicts of riparian area, the Board finds that no adverse environmental consequences will result from the protection of the aggregate resource. The riparian area along the river consists of vegetation approximately 40 feet in depth from the bank along 80 to 90 percent of the area's frontage. The Board finds that no mining will occur within 100 feet of the river so the vegetative communities of the riparian area resource will remain intact. There will be no loss of woody matter that serves as a habitat for wildlife and bank stabilization. Grading of the site will occur so that surface water is drained into the site, not toward the riparian area so that the riparian area will not be affected by sediment from the operation. The riparian area will continue to serve its present purpose of filtering surface water drainage to the river. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report and the report of CHZM Hill that the setbacks from the river as proposed are conservative and provide protection to the riparian area and for river bank protection. The Board finds that the riparian zone will be enhanced by the planting of additional screening along the river bank as conditioned by the approval of DOGAMI and Parks which will result in a positive environmental consequence. 10.2.7 With respect to the fish habitat resource, the Board finds that no adverse environmental consequences to the fish habitat resource will occur by protecting the aggregate resource. The Board accepts the conclusions of ODFW that the fish habitat and the river will be adequately protected during and after mining. The Board further believes that the CHZM Hill reports, both in its analysis of the ground and surface water quality impacts and its evaluation of the wildlife resource that no adverse effects on the water quality or its beneficial uses will result from the proposed surface mining operation. 22 10.2.8 The proposed surface mining plan incorporates environmental measures which minimize the impacts of dust and vegetation removal/topographical changes which could negatively impact the fish habitat and its water quality. The implementation of dust control measures as described in Section 10.2.5, incorporated herein, will reduce fugitive emissions that could increase river turbidity which could negatively affect the fish resource. Phasing of the active mining to 5 acres per year with ongoing reclamation will further reduce the potential for erosion. Preservation of the riparian area and control of surface water drainage will prevent discharges into the river which would result in negative environmental consequences to the fish habitat. 10.2.9 The Board further finds that the fish habitat resource and the Deschutes River Waterway resource will be protected from environmental impacts associated with the surface mining at Site No. 368. The Board accepts the analysis performed by CH2M Hill to evaluate the impacts on surface and groundwater quality at the site which indicated that the principal concerns for groundwater at the site are the interception of the subsurface flow to the Deschutes River and water quality degradation due to the proposed mining and postmining activities. With respect to surface water resources, the principal concerns include the destruction of riparian areas, site erosion into the Deschutes River during typical flow or flood conditions, and the degradation of water quality due to proposed mining and post -mining operations. 10.2.10 The Board finds that the riparian area adjacent to the river along Site No. 368 will be protected from the mining activity. The Board incorporates its findings in Section 10.2.6 wherein it was found that no adverse environmental consequences will result to the riparian area. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report and the comments of ODFW that the setbacks from the riparian area are sufficient to provide bank stability during mining and to ensure that the riparian habitat is maintained. The Board further accepts the report of CH2M Hill that the setbacks will prevent degradation or loss of the riparian area and that the riparian buffer will continue to filter surface runoff from areas adjacent to the river. 10.2.11 With respect to site erosion into the river during typical flow or flood conditions which could negatively impact the fish habitat and waterway resource, the Board finds that the only surface water source at the site is the Deschutes River. No tributaries, springs or seeps exist on the site. At the location of Site no. 368, the river channel is stable, showing no indications of channel movement or significant annual flooding. Bedrock is present under the mine site and extends into the river channel. The river ranges from 75 to 100 feet wide and has an average depth of 1 to 2 feet. The river banks along Site No. 368 23 101 A 1 Y 4 4 have a well-developed riparian zone that is vegetated by willow, cottonwood, cattails, and some sedges. 10.2.12 The Board finds that all excavation faces of the surface mining operation will be sloped so that they drain into the pit and not towards the river. Only that area that is necessary to develop the mine face and stockpile soil - not to exceed 5 acres - will be disturbed at any one time. The setback provisions, protection of the riparian area, the on-site surface water drainage plan, and annual reclamation will protect the river and its fish habitat from the potential of erosion of excavation and reclaimed area soils which could negatively impact the water quality. The Board further finds that a secondary water quality concern involved fugitive dust that could increase turbidity and suspended solid levels in the river. The Board accepts CH2M Hill's report that this potential problem can be mitigated by the dust control measures incorporated into the proposed surface mining operation plan for Site No. 368. 10.2.13 With respect to the concern relating to groundwater for the interception of subsurface flow to the river and water quality degradation due to the proposed mining and post - mining activities, the Board finds that no groundwater was encountered in the test pits at the site to the depth proposed for mining (10 feet below the current surface elevations). Bedrock exists below the mining area and extends into the river channel. The Board finds that the interception of groundwater is not expected during mining operations and accepts CH2M Hill's report which concludes that no adverse effects on groundwater will result from the aggregate mining operation at Site No. 368. The Board further finds that the potential for water quality contamination from routine maintenance and fueling of the surface mining equipment is remote because the mining operation will only involve the on-site maintenance of the drag line. All other vehicles will be serviced at the owner/operator's processing plant in Tumalo. The Board accepts the report of CH2M Hill that the expected on-site servicing of the drag line does not present a substantial risk of an on-site fuel or oil spill which could affect water quality. 10.2.14 The Board accepts the reports of CH2M Hill and DOGAMI as well as the comments of ODFW and concludes that no adverse effects on groundwater or surface water quality or their beneficial uses will result from the aggregate mining operation at Site No. 368, and that following reclamation to its current use (sprinkle irrigated pasture), no long-term surface or groundwater problems will result. 10.2.15 The Board finds that a report from CH2M Hill was submitted which evaluated the major plant communities and 24 wildlife habitats on the site and considered the impacts on those resources which could result from the surface mining operation. The Board finds that the site includes riparian habitat immediately adjacent to the river, cultivated pastures on the lower benches, and juniper woodlands on the steeper slopes and upper benches on both sides of the river. The riparian vegetation consisting of willow, spirea, and cattail is 15 to 20 feet in height and varies in width from 10 to 40 feet. The thickets form a fringe over approximately 80 to 90 percent of the river shoreline. The cultivated pastures occur on the lower benches 10 to 20 feet above the river and contain a mixture of cultivate grass species with some inclusion of rabbitbrush. The upper benches are dominated by sagebrush, bunchgrass and juniper woodlands. The Board finds that Site No. 368 is not a designated significant wildlife area or habitat. It is an area frequented by many species of common birds and mammals. There are no known roosting and/or nesting sites for large raptors. Site No. 368 is not located in the County's designated mule deer winter range. The Boards accepts and believes CH2M Hill's finding that the primary impacts of the mining process would be to the cultivated pastures, resulting in some loss of breeding and foraging habitat for grassland species, but that the potentially impacted species are common and widespread and this habitat supply is not in short supply. The only exception may be the Western Bluebird, a less common species. Any potential impact to that species could be mitigated by providing additional nest boxes around the perimeter of the pastures not currently being mined for aggregate. The Board accepts the staff report's findings and the report of CH2M Hill that the impacts due to habitat destruction would be minor. The mining operation, located only on the pasture terraces will result in a temporary loss of habitat for grassland species, but the potentially impacted species are generally common and widespread in the region and the habitat type is not in short supply. Phasing of the mining operation, limiting mining to a maximum of 5 acres with concurrent reclamation will not result in a significant decrease of the available forage for wildlife. Reclamation and replanting could enhance the wildlife habitat after mining. Further, the Board accepts the finding of CH2M Hill that the noise from the mining operation may depress wildlife activity in the immediate vicinity but that mining activity, limited to daylight hours when the aggregate is actually being extracted and hauled away, would not have an adverse long term impact on wildlife. 10.2.16 With respect to the identified resource conflicts of state scenic waterway and the designation of this stretch of the river as an outstanding scenic site or area the Board finds that the values of the resource conflicts of the 25`; scenic waterway and outstanding scenic view or area are related to the values of the other resource conflicts in that preservation and conservation of the scenic waterway and outstanding scenic areas are significant for the open space values, outdoor recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat values for the present and future benefit to the public. The Board finds that the mining operation at Site No. 368 will not significantly interfere with the resource conflicts of scenic waterway and outstanding scenic view. The Board incorporates the considerations of Parks in their determination that the mining operation will not substantially impair the natural beauty of the scenic waterway (Section 9.2). In addition, the Board incorporates its findings in Sections 10.2.2 - 10.2.16 regarding the impacts on resource conflicts of open space, riparian area, fish and wildlife habitat and waterway. The Board further finds that the scenic values and outstanding views of the river and from the river will not be significantly impacted. The mining operation is located only at terraces 10-40 feet above the level of the river so that visual effects of the operation will be minimized. That area is substantially buffered and screened by the riparian zone for any recreational river users, and is screened by the topographic characteristics of the site from Twin Bridges Road. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report and the condition of its permit approval that if mining occurs from south to north, the excavation will be screened by topography from Twin Bridges Road. DOGAMI found that the lowering of the pastures by mining across them and respreading and reseeding the topsoil immediately after replacement should not appear significantly different than a farming operation. The Board finds that several residences are located north of the site primarily on rimrock areas above the river. The Board finds that the mining of Site No. 368 will have a visual impact on those residences, but that the impacts associated with the surface mining operation will be short-term and that there will be no long-term significant impacts to the outstanding scenic view, the scenic values and ecological resources of the scenic waterway by the mining operation. 3 Social Consequences. The Boards finds that the protection of the aggregate resource would result in both negative and positive social consequences to the resource conflicts. The short-term loss of visual appeal of the area resulting from the impacts of the surface mining operation as described in Sections 10.2 - 10.2.16 herein will be a negative social consequence to the resource conflicts of open space, waterway, scenic waterway and outstanding scenic view. The surface mining operation will temporarily alter the existing natural state of the area, and to the extent that that is a value of those resources to persons enjoying the views and vistas in their natural states, a negative social consequence results. However, the Board finds that both 26 ioi `1147 topographical and vegetative characteristics of the site as well as the site's proposed operational plan provisions serve to significantly reduce the social consequences resulting from the mining activity at Site No. 368. The Board finds that only 55 acres of the approximate 200 -acre site will be mined, and that only one 5 -acre portion will be actively mined at any one time. No processing of the material is proposed. The phasing of the mining operation with concurrent reclamation will limit the disturbance to the site's natural state. The Board finds that the site is substantially buffered and screened along 80-90% of its river frontage by the existing 40 -feet deep riparian vegetation area. The riparian area will be protected from the mining operation and will be enhanced by the additional plantings along the newly constructed bridge. The riparian buffer serves to screen the mining area so that those persons viewing the area from the river will not be adversely affected by the short-term change in the area's natural state. The Board finds that the maintenance of the riparian zone and its enhancement by additional plantings significantly mitigates the negative social consequences on river visitors. In addition, the Board finds that the mining will occur on terraces between 10 and 40 feet above the river, and that as a result much of the mining activity will not be visible to those using the river. The Board further finds that mining in a north to south direction, as conditioned by DOGAMI in its permit approval, will screen the operation from those persons traveling on Twin Bridges Road, so there is no visual impact on the users of Twin Bridges Road. The Board also finds that the impacts of noise and dust which could negatively impact the visual appeal of the resource conflicts can be mitigated as proposed in the operational plan, including fugitive dust emission control and maintenance and noise mufflers, so that no significant negative social consequences result. The Board incorporates its findings in Sections 10.2 - 10.2.16 herein. The Board finds that the outdoor recreational opportunities afforded by the resource conflicts of scenic waterway and open space will not be negatively impacted from protecting the resource. Public access to the area is presently limited; access to the river is limited to the bridges in the area. A positive social consequence can result from the protection of the aggregate resource by the donation of the conservation easement by the owner/operator allowing public access for various outdoor recreational purposes, including hiking and fishing. The conservation easement enhances the recreational opportunities and is a significant positive social consequence of protecting the aggregate resource. 27 1148 Truck traffic associated with the surface mining operation is limited; approximately 6 trucks per hour are the expected traffic impact. The traffic will utilize the newly constructed bridge at the southwestern end of the site, which has been constructed in accordance with federal, state and county permits and safety standards. The Board finds that the traffic associated with the operation is minimal and that the negative social consequences to the resources is limited by the restricted number of trucks associated with the operation, and the use an access road which will not be used by other persons residing in the area. 4 Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy consequences of protecting the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts will be both positive and negative. Energy consumption will be necessary to run the surface mining equipment on site. The Board finds that this expenditure of fuel is necessary at any extraction operation and does not consider it significant. For Site No. 368, no crushing or processing of material is proposed on site, so the energy consumption will be limited to the extraction equipment. Fuel will also be needed to transport the aggregate product to the crusher and to its market destination. Given the location of Site No. 368 in close proximity to the crusher and to the major market area for aggregate, the expenditure of fuel necessary to transport the aggregate to its end use will not be significant relative to sites which are located a greater distance from the major market area. The Board finds that the utilization of aggregate resources near the major market area results in a positive energy consequence when compared to the necessary use of fuel to transport aggregate resources from inventoried sites further away from its market area. Failure to protect aggregate resources in close proximity to the market would result in significant negative energy consequences since additional energy consumption would be necessary to transport the aggregate resources located greater distances than Site No. 368 from the market areas. The protection of the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts may result in negative energy consequence if the public is required to travel greater distances to those view the resources conflicts of open space and scenic waterway and outstanding view or site. The Board finds that public access to the river at Site No. 368 is limited because it is privately owned and no public recreational accesses are located nearby. Access to the river is limited to the bridge accesses. The mining area is screened by the site's topography or vegetative communities for those travelling on Twin Bridges Road. The Board finds that the potential for a negative energy consequence from the public travelling greater distances to view the resource conflicts is insignificant. Further, the Board finds that following '4 28 ' � a 01 1149 reclamation of the site and dedication of a conservation easement to offer public access, the site will be available for public recreational opportunities so that the long-term negative energy consequence is positive. 5 Economic Consequences. The Board finds that positive economic consequences result from protecting the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts. Preserving the aggregate resource adds to the overall county supply which serves to maintain the cost of the resource within the County. Failure to protect an adequate supply of the aggregate resource would result in the negative economic consequence of a higher cost for the resource and higher cost for its use in the development of the County. The Board finds that the aggregate resource at Site No. 368 is of excellent quality and is located in close proximity to the major aggregate market. Only approximately 5.5 million cubic yards of the inventoried sand and gravel inventory is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend urban area. Of that, this site offers 570,000 cubic yards determined to be of superior quality. Protection of the superior aggregate resource in close proximity to the areas of major demand results in a positive economic consequence. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource will result in accelerated deterioration of the roadways which bear the burden of the traffic associated with the surface mining activity. The cost of maintaining these roads is a negative economic consequence of preserving the aggregate resource. Because the aggregate resource is a necessary commodity for the development of the area and transportation of the resource necessarily affects the transportation routes, preserving the aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area will result in positive economic consequences by minimizing the need to maintain roadways distanced further from the market end. The Board finds that the potential for negative economic consequences on the resource conflicts from protecting the aggregate resource relates to the potential of a reduction in the number of tourists to the County resulting from a failure to protect valued resources such as the scenic waterway or open space. The Board finds that the scenic beauty of the river corridor, and the natural state of the open space resource will not be substantially impaired from protecting the aggregate resource and that a significant decrease in tourists in Deschutes County will not occur by protecting the aggregate resource. The Board incorporates its findings herein from Sections 10.2 - 10.2.16. The Board further incorporates the factors considered by Parks in determining that the proposal will not substantially impair the natural beauty of the river herein. The Board believes that the long-term protection of the site from development and the donation of a conservation easement for public access to the river and river -related recreational purposes will enhance the public 29 z °:. access to the site, maintain open space, and will result in a long-term positive economic consequence to the County. 11. ESEE Analysis - Conflicting Resource Uses - Protection of Resource Uses over Aggregate Resource 1 This section of the findings addresses the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource from protecting the resource conflicts. 2 Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. Full protection of the resource conflicts would preclude surface mining. The impacts of dust, noise and human presence, traffic, vegetation removal and changes in topography which are associated with the surface mining activity, and which can result in negative environmental consequences in the absence of mitigation measures, would be eliminated. By not protecting the aggregate resource, negative environmental consequences to the resource conflicts would result by the extension of rural residential development or other conflicting uses in the area. Surface mining is a transitional use and, following reclamation, the area can be returned to resource uses of open space or scenic waterway. Not protecting Site No. 368 for mining could mean that other types of uses conflicting with the resource uses could be introduced which result in long-term negative environmental consequences to the resource conflicts. Unlike surface mining which is a transitional use, the proliferation of conflicting uses to the resource conflicts can be permanent. The Board finds that the donation of a conservation easement which restricts the development of rural residential uses or other structures on Site No. 368 following extraction of the resource results in a significant long-term positive environmental consequence to the resource conflicts. 3 Energv Consequences. Protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would have negative energy consequences. The failure to protect aggregate resources which are located in close proximity to the market area involving diminished haulage distances to the major aggregate market areas would result in increased energy consumption to transport aggregate resources located further from the market area. The Board finds that protecting the resource conflicts may have a positive energy consequence of allowing visitors or tourists to the County to view these resources without expending additional fuel to travel further distances; however, the Board finds that the significance of the energy consequences related to the expenditure of fuel to view such resources is limited for Site No. 368 as described by the Board's findings in Section 10.4. 30 1751 4 Social Consequences. The social consequences of protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would both be positive and negative. If the conflicting resource uses were fully protected, the impacts associated with surface mining activities including dust, noise and human presence, traffic impacts, vegetation removal and soil/topographical changes would be eliminated. Full protection of the conflicting resource uses would preclude surface mining. By eliminating those impacts which, in the absence of mitigation measures, result in negative social consequences to the resource uses by impairing the ability of people to view resources such as open space areas and the scenic waterway, a positive social consequence results. On the other hand, preserving the resource conflicts will have a negative social consequence if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. The deterioration of the road infrastructure, inadequate aggregate to meet the demand for commercial, industrial or residential development for the visitors or residents of the county, or having aggregate resource at an increased cost is a negative social consequence. Further, failure to preserve aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area will increase the overall cost of aggregate from inventories located further from the market area resulting in a negative social consequence. 5 Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would be negative. The Board finds that the failure to protect a sufficient supply of aggregate for the future growth of the County will result in increased cost for the resource. Increases in aggregate resource costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to be hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by the transportation costs, resulting in a negative economic consequence. The overall County inventory for sand and gravel accounted for in this inventorying process, consists of approximately 45 million cubic yards of available aggregate. Based on an estimated 2 million cubic yard annual aggregate demand, (Ordinance No. 90-028, incorporated herein by this reference), the County's inventoried aggregate sites are sufficient to serve the County for the 20 year planning period. Aggregate is a finite resource and failure to preserve sufficient quantities for future growth is not readily mitigated. 12. ESEE Analysis -- Conflicting Land Uses Protection of Aggregate Resource 1 This section addresses the ESEE consequences on the conflicting land uses from protecting the aggregate resource. 31 Both the impacts on the resource site and on the conflicting land uses are considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. The Board finds that the conflicting land uses consist of the potential conflicting uses identified primarily by examining the uses allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the County on the site and in the impact area. The potential conflicting land uses are identified in Section 8.11. The Board also finds that the conflicting land uses also consist of the existing land uses on the site and in the impact area. The Board accepts the staff report finding that the existing land uses consist of the existing rural residential and other housing uses in the area. The Board finds that rural residential and other housing uses are noise -sensitive uses under the DEQ standards and are dust sensitive uses as defined in Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that a variety of the potential conflicting land uses allowed in the broad zoning districts, including residential, commercial, and farming with livestock are noise and dust sensitive, but that utility uses, land -fill uses, forest operations, farming without livestock and other mining uses are not noise and dust sensitive. 2 Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. In the absence of restrictions on the surface mining activity, the existing identified conflicting land uses would be adversely affected by the impacts of dust, and noise, traffic impacts and changes to the landscape associated with surface mining activities. With respect to the impact of dust, the Board finds that fugitive dust emissions produced as a result of the surface mining activities can have a negative impact on the existing conflicting land uses, if not controlled as a part of the surface mining activity. For Site No. 368, the Board finds that the surface mining plan incorporates operational measures to minimize dust emissions. The Board incorporates it findings in Section 10.2.5 regarding these control measures. The Board finds that an air quality report has been submitted by CH2M Hill which analyzed the impact of the mining operations on the air quality of the area and identified the sources of particulate emissions from the operation. The Board incorporates its findings from Section 10.5. The Board finds that with the implementation of dust control measures as identified in Section 10.2.5, there will be no significant impact on the air quality resource from the fugitive dust emissions of the operation. The Board further finds that the noise associated with the surface mining operation can impact the conflicting land uses. The Board accepts the report from CH2M Hill that the noise levels 32 of the surface mining operation meet the applicable DEQ criteria with the utilization of a muffler device on the exhaust of the crane and that the employment of other noise mitigation measures such as a berm can be used, if necessary, to satisfy the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board accepts the staff report finding and that of the DOGAMI report that the impacts on the existing conflicting land uses will be a short-term visual impact. Given the topography of the area, several residences located on the rimrock areas above the river will be visually impacted by the protection of the aggregate resource. The Board finds the mining operation will have a visual impact on those existing conflicting land uses, but that the impacts will be short-term and their significance can be substantially reduced by the implementation of operational control measures on the operation. Limiting the extraction area to 5 acres, controlling dust emissions and providing for ongoing reclamation will minimize the environmental consequences to the conflicting land uses. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report herein. The Board finds that the truck traffic generated by the surface mining operation will travel along an access road at the southwestern end of the site. The truck traffic generated by the surface mining operation will not pass any existing conflicting land uses, including rural residential uses on the access road to the Cline Falls Road. Further, the Board finds that by phasing the operation, the truck traffic generated by the operation is reduced. The Board finds that the implementation of dust emission controls incorporated as a part of the. operation's proposed plan as described in Section 10.2.5 will minimize the fugitive dust impacts of the truck traffic. The Board accepts CH2M Hill's report that the surface mining operation, including the truck traffic, will not have a significant impact on the air quality resource. The Board incorporates its findings of Section 10.2.5 herein. Further, the Board finds that failure to protect the aggregate resource would preclude the opportunity to enhance the environmental attributes of the area. Reclamation of the mining site has the potential for enhancing the productivity of the agricultural lands. The long-term dedication of the property for resource use - open space, pasture or agricultural purposes and precluding the development of the site will enhance the environmental attributes of the area for the conflicting land uses. 3 Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in both positive and negative economic consequences. The Board recognizes that a claim has been made that the protection of the aggregate resource adversely impacts the property values on adjacent properties. The economic analysis from the Deschutes County Assessor's office, based on the property tax assessment 33 values of specific parcels adjacent to and within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mining sites, indicates that there are no downward fluctuations in these property values. The same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The Board accepts and believes the economic property value trending analysis from the County Assessor and finds that no significant negative economic consequence to the property values of the conflicting land uses results from the protection of the aggregate resource. The Board finds that protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in the increased cost of maintaining the transportation infrastructure caused by the higher rate of deterioration on the roads which bear the burden of the traffic associated with the surface mining activity. Preserving the aggregate resource adds to the overall county supply which serves to maintain the cost of the resource within the County. In Ordinances No. 90-028 and 90-025, incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that the inventory of identified available aggregate sites for sand and gravel is needed to meet the anticipated demand for the County's future. Failure to protect an adequate supply of the aggregate resource would result in the negative economic consequence of a higher cost for the resource and higher cost for its use in the development of the County. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource will result in accelerated deterioration of the roadways which bear the traffic associated with the surface mining activity. The cost of maintaining these roads is a negative economic consequence of preserving the aggregate resource. Because the aggregate resource is a necessary commodity for the development of the area, and transportation of the resource necessarily affects the transportation routes, preserving the aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area will result in net positive economic consequences by minimizing the extent of roadways that are impacted. The Board recognizes that the cost associated with maintenance of the transportation infrastructure can be significant. By Ordinance No. 90-014, the County has required that improvements or fees in lieu of improvements reflecting the pro rata share of the actual total cost of capital expenditures of the road improvements necessitated by or benefitting the surface mining operation can be transferred to the surface mining operator if the determination is made that the increased traffic on the road due to the surface mining activity will damage the road. For Site No. 368, its close proximity to the crusher and to the market area minimizes this negative economic consequence and, the preservation of aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area results in positive economic consequences by minimizing the need to maintain the transportation infrastructure 34 "j 8 U't '17 5 5 which would be utilized by the transportation of the aggregate resource located further from the market demand area. Preservation of the aggregate resource adds to the overall supply of aggregate which serves to maintain an economical cost of the resource in the County. Failure to protect an adequate supply would result in negative economic consequences. Protecting the aggregate resource will have some short- term negative impacts on the ability to utilize the site's property for other uses. However, surface mining is a transitional use and by preserving the aggregate resource for resource production, the site is still able to provide economic benefits to the community presently and in the future. The Board finds that the value of the use of the aggregate resource site for other uses than resource extraction for temporary uses such as farming and agriculture prior to mining, and its economic value for other uses following mining, is a positive economic consequence to protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses. 4 Social Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses would result in both positive and negative social consequences to the conflicting land uses. The impacts of dust, noise, traffic and aesthetic considerations related to the alterations in the landscape can adversely affect the liveability and social character of the conflicting land uses. For Site No. 368, the Board finds that the impacts from the surface mining operation on the conflicting land uses which affect the liveability and social character of the area are the noise and dust impacts associated with the surface mining activity, as well as the visual impact on the change in topography. The Board accepts the report from CHZM Hill which concludes that the noise impacts associated with the operation will, with appropriate mitigation measures, meet the DEQ standards. Further, the Board finds that the visual impact to the conflicting land uses resulting from the impact of dust will be substantially mitigated by operational standards. The alteration in the natural state of the landscape is a short-term impact. Limiting the active mining area to 5 acres with ongoing reclamation and irrigation and planting of the reclaimed terraces will minimize the negative social consequences. The significance of the negative social consequence of these impacts on these conflicting land uses will be substantially diminished by the implementation of dust emission controls and operational restrictions on the surface mining activity. Bypassing the roads presently used by the residents in the area will further reduce impacts on the liveability of the area. Preserving the aggregate resource serves to protect the area from additional development which could otherwise have 35 Awa t - I r 5G negative social consequences to the conflicting land uses by changing the social character of the area. The long-term preservation of Site No. 368 by the conservation easement and the dedication of public access to the river are positive social consequences to the conflicting land uses from protecting the aggregate resource. 5 Energy Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in positive and negative energy consequences. Increased energy consumption is necessary at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the surface mining equipment and fuel necessary to transport the aggregate product to the end use. However, given the location of Site No. 368, near the major aggregate market, the expenditure of energy for transportation is not significant. And, utilization of aggregate resources near the major market areas results in positive energy consequences when compared to the necessary use of fuel to transport aggregate resources from inventoried sites further from the major market area. Failure to protect the aggregate resources in close proximity to the market would result in significant negative energy consequences since additional energy consumption would be necessary to transport the aggregate resources located greater distances than Site No. 368 from the market areas. 13. ESEE Consequences -- Conflicting Land Uses Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 1 This section of the findings addresses the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource from protecting the conflicting land uses. Both the impacts on the resource and the conflicting land uses are considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. 2 Environmental Consequences. Protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. Protecting the conflicting land uses would have the effect of precluding or limiting surface mining activity due to noise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts. Fully protecting the conflicting land uses would preclude mining. This would have the consequence of eliminating the impacts of noise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining which, in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures, can have negative environmental consequences. However, protecting the conflicting land uses would also have negative environmental consequences. The development of the site and surrounding area by the proliferation of conflicting land uses would- negatively impact the identified Goal 5 resources of the area. The Board finds that the value of the open space and scenic waterway resources may be negatively impacted by the 36 of - 1757 development of additional rural residential uses. Such uses are permanent, unlike the transitional nature of surface mining, and would have a long-term negative impact on the resources. Also, allowing the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would preclude the enhancement of the site for future environmental amenities which would result from reclaiming the site to more productive pasture land or by preserving the area for open space following extraction of the resource, as provided for in the conservation easement proposed for Site No. 368. 3 Social Consequences. Protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would have negative social consequences on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. The County's demand for aggregate is 2 million cubic yards per year. An adequate supply of aggregate is needed to maintain the County road transportation infrastructure and to permit development of housing and commercial/ industrial uses. Negative social consequences will result if the building costs increase from a shortage of readily available aggregate. The Board finds that protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would preclude the extraction of the aggregate resource. Most of the uses allowed in the surrounding zoning districts are noise -sensitive uses for purposes of the DEQ noise regulations and the impacts of dust emissions, traffic and aesthetic changes to the landscape associated with surface mining would have the effect of precluding surface mining activities if conflicting land uses were fully protected. Full protection of conflicting land uses would have the positive social consequence of eliminating the impacts of noise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts which, in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures, can have negative social consequences. However, protecting the conflicting land uses would also result in negative social consequences from the proliferation of development negatively impacting the social rural character of the area. 4 Energy Consequences. Allowing the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource at Site No. 368 would have a negative energy consequence because aggregate resources necessary for County aggregate supply would be required from sites a greater distance from the market area. This would increase the energy consumption necessary for transportation of the aggregate resource and the cost of maintaining more of the transportation system bearing the burden of that increased traffic. In addition, allowing the conflicting land uses would increase the traffic utilizing the infrastructure in the area. The development of conflicting land uses with a greater life span than surface mining would have a greater long-term negative energy consequence than surface mining. 5 Economic Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource can have the effect of preventing or limiting the utilization of the aggregate resource at the site due to the impacts of noise, dust, traffic and aesthetic considerations related to the topographical and landscape impacts which constrain surface mining activities located near conflicting land uses. The failure to protect aggregate resources which are located in close proximity to the market demand will have a negative economic consequence of increasing the overall cost of the resource given the costs of transporting the aggregate resource from a location further from the major market area and by increasing the cost of maintaining the transportation infrastructure of more road miles which will bear the burden of transporting the aggregate from resource sites further from the major market area. 14. Program to Achieve Goal 5 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-010, the Board finds that there is adequate information on the location, quality and quantity of the inventoried aggregate resource, as well as on the nature of the conflicting land uses and ESEE consequences for Site No. 368. Based on the determination of the ESEE consequences, the County has developed a program to achieve Goal 5. The Board finds that, based on the ESEE consequences, both the aggregate resource and the resource conflicts are important relative to one another. The ESEE consequences should be balanced so as both to protect the aggregate resource to the extent referenced herein and to allow the resource conflicts. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), a program should be developed to limit the use of the aggregate resource and protect the resource conflicts. Based on the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting land uses and protecting the inventoried aggregate resources, the Board finds that with respect to existing conflicting land uses, both the aggregate resource and the existing conflicting land uses are important relative to each other. Accordingly, the Board finds that, pursuant to OAR 660-16- 010, it will protect the aggregate resource and the existing conflicting land uses in favor of each other. The Board finds that existing conflicting land uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. The Board finds that the value of potential future development of conflicting land uses to the inventoried aggregate resource are not important enough to limit the protection of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future conflicting land uses, if any, can be accommodated on other similarly zoned lands in the County. W To implement this decision, Site No. 368 will be zoned for surface mining ("SM"), subject to the following ESEE conditions: (1) Extraction of aggregate materials will be allowed only on Terraces No. 2 and No. 4, subject to the terms of the proposed surface mining operation plan (2) Processing will be prohibited on-site. (3) Excavation will be limited to 5 acres at any one time with concurrent reclamation. (4) Water rights shall remain on the property as long as necessary to reclaim the land. (5) All permit conditions from Parks for the scenic waterway shall be met. (6) The agreement between the owner/operator and Conservationists shall be met. (7) The agreement between the owner/operator and Deschutes River Ranch shall be met. (8) Work hours shall be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., no weekends or holidays. (9) The operators shall confer with ODFW on wildlife and habitat considerations during the operation and reclamation. (10) That portion of the access road entering on to Cline Falls Road shall be paved. (11) The site shall be graded in order to allow or irrigation. (12) Screening shall be provided. (13) DEQ noise standards be met. Resource Conflicts. The Board finds that the ESEE conditions on the protection of the aggregate resource limits the protection of the aggregate resource in order to protect the resource conflicts. The Board further finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting the aggregate resource, since a substantial portion of the aggregate site will be allowed to be mined. Aggregate Resource. The Board finds that the aggregate resource will be protected by zoning Site No. 368 for surface mining ("SM") to allow for surface mining operations. The Board finds that Ordinance No. 90-014 allows mining activities as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the SM zone. Conflicting land uses such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit the surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the SM zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of the protection of sufficient mineral and aggregate resources to meet the County's aggregate needs. The Board finds that the imposition of the Surface Mining Impact Area ("SMIA") combining zone on the impact area as set forth in Ordinance No. 90-014 will further protect the aggregate resource. The impact area surrounding the SM zone on Site No. 368 is so designated. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (1) New conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activity; and (2) In all cases of new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses, such as are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions are sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflicting future development. The Board finds that in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning Site No. 368 for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, satisfies the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resource to meet the needs of the County. Resource conflicts and existing conflicting land uses are protected by the requirement that newly -sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, and adhere to limits on 40 1761 maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations, as provided for in Ordinance No. 90-014 and in the ESEE conditions. W56/01/0006-1/06 01 �"- 1 762 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 366 Site Number 366 is located in the Highway Division right-of- way in Township 16 South, Range 12, Section 30, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 366 comprises approximately 14.1 acres and is located on the north side of Highway 20, approximately one-half mile northwest of Tumalo. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned MUA-10, SMR and LM. This sites was originally given a wrong tax lot number and wrong location. This was resolves through the Board hearing process. Part of the con- fusion came due to the lack of a tax lot number, which describes this parcel. The highway right-of-way at this location is approximately 900 feet wide. Numerous maps in the file are in error. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict - 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 ?01 1163 ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 40,000 cubic yards of ODOT quality gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. This northwest of Tumalo and is the state Highway Division. least 20 years and is used the highway in this area. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. site is located along Highway an existing gravel pit used by The site has been in use for primarily in road construction 20 at on 1. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning as LM indicates important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact open space resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 9 e 21�'A(j b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the MUA-10 and EFU-20 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. (2) The impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensi- tive uses, as defined below. Surrounding zones (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of.the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. However, due to the large lot sizes in the 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 ;- _ s ; 161 f�� -1 - :1 7 6 5 area, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, riparian areas, fish resources, and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 17 6 G sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. the Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Natural 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 ,..yi}t ) a01 " Y6{ The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 .1 011 1" 1.168 scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway maintenance. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new develop- ment. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660- 16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve every- day transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 i 0 l -y :1 , -1 0 tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations; the owner has indicated that that would not be a problem in this case. Protection of sur- rounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resour- ces for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 energy commitment because of the life span of such develop- ment. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; The Board finds that processing on site will {not} be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 i U I - 1 Y'x3 demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #366 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/10/87 4. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/17/86 5. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/1/85 6. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/29/83 7. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 8/2/82 8. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 7/22/82 9. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 9/24/81 10. GRANT OF TOTAL AND /OR LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 7/6/81 11. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 6/16/80 12. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/12/79 13. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXCEPTION DATED 9/16/88 14. LETTER FROM STATE HWY TO PLANNING DIVISION 15. MAP 16. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 17. OLD MAP 18. ZONE CHANGE INFORMATION 19. NOTIFICATION MAPS 20. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 21. MYLAR 1 ,01 -, 1775 22. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 23. LETTER FROM KENNETH CARDWELL 8/14/89 24. 25. ERATTA SHEET 26. MEMORANDUM 27. LETTER FROM STAN & DOLORES GROTJAN 7/27/89 c.—�? 6i ivy D Com�nGkCISO-A on -c 2 4 X776 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 370 Site Number 370, occupying tax lots 400, 402, 501, 1102, 1400, 2501, 2700, 3200, 4200, 4300, 4400, 1099, 2301, 2302, 2600, 3800, 2400 and 2500 in Township 16 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 31, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that prelimin- ary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 370 constitutes the headquarters site for Bend Aggregate and Paving and is located in Tumalo, just off Highway 20. The site is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned SMR, R & D, MUA-10, EFU-20, RSR -5 and RSR -M. The staff report erroneously stated that the site was located in a landscape management zone. No such overlay applies to this site. This site is listed on the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the mineral and aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's mineral and aggregate resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identi- fied conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evalu- ated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protec- ting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 h ?01 - 1777 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife and a representative from Bend Aggre- gate and Paving. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. Although the County's Goal 5 mineral and aggre- gate inventory states that the site is a storage site only, the Board finds that the site has some amount of unextracted sand and gravel on it. The site is a historical mining site going back 50 years. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is the location of Bend Aggregate and Paving. The site is located in Tumalo, South of Highway 20 West, along Cook Avenue. Access to the offices, paving plant and pits is off Cook Avenue. The Deschutes River is just east of the subject site within 250 feet on the southern end. Highway 20 West is just across the river to the east and borders the site on the north. The site is improved with an office, old house and a number of industrial buildings and equipment which are used in the aggregate/paving business. A majority of the surrounding property is additional mining property. The town of Tumalo is just north of the site, across Highway 20. To the east is the Deschutes River and Highway 20. To the south is site 304. There are also a couple of older homes just south of the subject site. Within one-half mile of the site is Tumalo to the north, vacant land to the west, vacant aggregate reserve land to the south and the Deschutes River and Highway 20 to the east. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Goal 5. Although the staff report listed resource conflicts as scenic and wildlife, the Board finds that no such conflicts exist at this site. Norm Behrens of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife testified that the area was outside the deer winter range. With respect to scenic values, the area is not located within an LM zone and has been fully devel- oped, consequently there are no conflicts with scenic values. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 0 ,l 1778 b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140 (RSR -M), 4.150 (RSR -5) and 4.230 (R&D) of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the SM and SMR zones to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclusion of other uses. The entire site is fully committed to surface mining activities. Surrounding zones (EFU-20, R&D, RR -10, RSR -M, RSR -5) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. This area presently has existing research facilities and some commercial development and residential devel- opment at the Tumalo Rim subdivision and in the town of Tumalo to the north. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. Because the processing plant is on-site, truck traffic conflicts with residential neighborhoods would be minimized. The area does have substantial bicycled traffic, which could be adversely affected by truck traffic. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 75 (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The staff report indicates that the site is within view of some of the Tumalo Rim Drive homes. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. The Board finds that much of the property immediately adjacent to this site is zoned SM or SMR and is already committed to mining uses. Such surrounding mining development lowers the level of conflict at this site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. This site has been committed to surface mining for 50 years, so property values should not be affected by the site. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 t () Al _ 1'780 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Due to the minimal amount of aggregate remaining at the site, and the fact the processing occurs on site, traffic impacts should be minimal. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 6. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that whatever the social consequences are of mining activity at the site, such consequences are currently being experienced due to the historic use at the site. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 8. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that the environmental consequences of mining currently affecting this site are the noise and dust impacts and the physical scarring of the landscape set forth above. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 9. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. In addition, there is the further economic consequence of failing to protect sources of aggregate such as this located close to market areas and processing sites. 10. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this and similar sites would be primarily increased costs for road maintenance and con- struction materials. 11. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well limit mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be limited. 12. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 IYS2 13. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The quality and location of this deposit close to the Bend urban market and the Bend Aggregate processing plant make it an important resource. This latter point is an important factor given the $.22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (c) Existing commercial and residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic and quality of life and health and safety expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; and (b) DEQ noise and dust standards shall be adhered to. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 i0l - 1183 Mineral Resource 15. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by continuing the SM zoning to allow for surface mining activi- ties. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 16. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 1784 17. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 18. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses are protected by the requirement that DEQ standards be met. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #370 i(aI - 1.185 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. MAPS 4. DISTRICT OWNER LANDS LEASED TO CASCADE PUMICE 5. TABLE OF LOCATIONS SUBMITTED BY CASCSDE PUMICE CO. 6. TABLE OF FUTURE AGGREGATE RESERVES 7. SURFACE MINING PROPERTY OF BEND AGGREGATE AND PAVING 8. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/6/87 9. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/18/86 10. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/3/85 11. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/24/84 12. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/4/83 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/1/82 14. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/7/81 15. LETTER FROM JERRY CURL DATED 9/11/80 16. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/8/80 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 9/4/80 18. LETTER FROM JANET L. BOETTCHER DATED 5/27/80 19. OLD NOTIFICATION LIST 20. BEND AGGREGATE MINING RESOURCES 21. LETTER FROM JERRY CURL DATED 22. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 23. NOTIFICATION MAPS 24. MYLAR 25. LETTER FROM COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES DATED 8/11/89 26. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMENDATION 27. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/20/89 a$ boa d oil nubs all- Corr) rn (,�;sbnw-rs de6s'ion mi nu— Al l 187 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 379 Site Number 379, occupying tax lot 1600 in Township 18 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 21, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 379 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located approximately one-half mile west of the Inn of the Seventh Mountain and south of Century Drive. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Department of Transportation and is zoned F-2 and LM. Adjacent land is zoned F-2. The surrounding land is owned by the U.S. Forest Service. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 r. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 500,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This site has a gentle slope to the southeast and is located lower than the grade of Century Drive. This is an existing surface mining site which has been used for various road projects for several years. The file contains prior site and reclamation plans from various projects from the past. The site is surrounded by the Deschutes National Forest on all sides and the undeveloped portion of the site is currently in natural vegetation of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine. The subject parcel is one-half west of the Inn of the Seventh Mountain. The visibility of the site from Century Drive is obscured by numerous trees. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The resource element of the County's compre- hensive plan shows this site to be immediately south of the Tumalo deer winter range boundary (Century Drive) and immediately north of an area designated as elk concentration. However, the site is not designated as a big -game sensitive area. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facili- ties, and fugitive dust emissions. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 c 101 - rY89 (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and streambed, and loss of vegetation and riparian habitat associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the F-2 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 zone would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except forest uses, utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses and other mining uses. Farm uses could be impacted if livestock were near the site. Stables would qualify as a noise -sensitive use; (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety; (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses, park uses and destination resorts; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 (4) Occupation of the surface that would displace other permitted in the zone. area of the site in a manner uses allowed or conditionally The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. To the extent existing trees at the site are harvested prior to mining, forest uses would not be conflicting. It is not possible to predict whether any such uses are likely to occur. However, due to the large lot sizes, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. 4. Pre-existing Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a pre-existing use at the site and would be able to continue within the existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have or are already occurring and would be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site could be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and secondly, whether the site is important enough so that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use conflicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflict with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 UI Io t 191 in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Century Drive who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape.] 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Century Drive. Protection of Natural 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 o - 1702 year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 `J liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Century Drive corridor for highway maintenance. Deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Conseguences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 01 " I Y 0 4 While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding con- flicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place con- straints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 % " 92 uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Century Drive would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such develop- ment. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and it location near its point of use, Century Drive. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010, it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 A • (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 I () I - 1 -19 mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 IT- t:�v 4 _� b, TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #379 tf)1-*:lI�-9 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS (3) 3. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 3/2/88 4. APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 2/22/88 5. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/16/83 6. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 4/15/83 7. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/25/83 8. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/9/82 9. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 4/19/82 10. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/3/82 11. LETTER TO HAL SIEGWORTH DATED 3/6/81 12. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 2/23/81 13. APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 2/20/81 14. DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST MINERAL MATERIALS PERMIT DATED 2/13/81 15. SAME AS ABOVE #14 16. LETTER FROM A.R. WESTBY DATED 1/8/81 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/23/80 18. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/27/77 19. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/25/77 20. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 21. NOTIFICATION MAP 1 22. ODOT INFO. SHEET 23. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 24. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP ZS. lfom O -DF W 9-10-89 zeD• 3oarc! o� Goonev sioner5 }}eer,o9 m;nu-t s Z-7. ,oard 06 `b ciston mint:tc.s 2 '�`"' .r ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 381 Site Number 381, occupying tax lot 1600 in Township 18 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 26D; and tax lot 12600, in Township 18 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 25C, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 21, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 381 comprises approximately 50 acres and is located off the end of Cinder Butte Drive south of Deschutes River Woods. The site is owned by Pieratt Brothers, Inc. and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10 and F-2. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 L01, - 1802 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. The entire site is a small cinder butte which is being actively mined. The excavation is into the north and east side of the butte. The majority of the site has been excavated in the past. The south end of the site is the Lava Butte Geological Area and to the east, north and west is the Deschutes River Woods subdivision. There are homes within 250 feet of the subject site. Testimony on this site consisted of opposition, citing noise, dust and the fact the site has in the past been used as a dump. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent EFU 20 and EFU 40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 ;�:199 't J-0.1 1803 indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -11 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 A ilzJ ��+ i0 1' 1804 The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 il01 1805 mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to local roads in the surrounding area, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situ- ated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway main- tenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 '�. :1 8 Q E the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. 7 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 381 a 1808 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con - 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 10 L 'M 180 9 flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consecquences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 01 :1810 b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. Operation at the site shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and Saturdays with the exception of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays; g. No dumping of wood debris or brush shall be allowed at this site; h. The haul road to the site shall be maintained to minimize dust when a new site plan is required. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 io,l - 181. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 • i 01 - 1812 surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. ZZ. 23 . TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #381 COVER INFORMATION SHEET SET OF MAPS REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 1/26/88 MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 12/21/87 MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 11/10/86 MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 11/11/85 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 7/8/85 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 11/8/84 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 9/5/84 APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 8/298/84 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/7/83 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/9/82 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 12/17/81 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/30/81 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/10/80 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/4/80 RECLAMATION REPORT 11/16/88 APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAP LETTER OF OPPOSITION PENSINGER MYLAR OF TOPO. O GOM 1'1"l►,S IQ fle.Y J �l � P1'�. fLll �.-S $ ; : ': d \ '8a0"f�! 0� Cann+rr:.sS�Or1G�5 ��GStOe1 nri"�r�u�-l.r.S ZCo*,� 1 &00 a to. 1814 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 390 Site Number 390, occupying tax lot 500 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 14, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 390 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located on northeast corner of Knott Road and 27th street. This site is the Knott Landfill, is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20, UAR-10 and SMR. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's select fill resources and con- flicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 0l - 1815 ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 2 million cubic yards of select fill material of which the quality is excellent. 2. Site Characteristics. This is the Knott Landfill located southeast of Bend on Knott Road. The entrance is by a paved access road off of 27th Street. Knott Landfill is the primary landfill in the County. The site has been mined for select fill in the past with the resulting hole used as a landfill. Land use in the surrounding area consists of Deschutes County Public Works shops and offices to the north, vacant land to the east and west and small hobby farms to the south. Additionally, to the south is an area zoned SMR. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. Most natural resources values have already been impacted due to the existence of a surface mine and landfill on this site. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the EFU-20 and UAR-10 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the EFU-,20 and UAR-10 zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 Wl -, 181 E noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Select Fill Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the select fill in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 'y e 1817 unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Most natural resources on the site have already been impacted by the existence of the landfill and surface mine. Select fill is in short supply in the County and this material is a quality fill material that is rare. The Board finds that select fill resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 io I y :1818 realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. 10. Social Consequences. Landfills are needed near the areas that they serve. The social consequence of closing a landfill would require relocating the landfill and signifi- cant impacts on a new site. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to the Bend urban area would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the select fill resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for select fill. b. Select fill resources are a locationally-dependent resource and this site is a large select fill source on the inventory. d. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the select fill resour- ce and the conflicting natural resources should be pro- tected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16- 010(3) protection of the select fill resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 .. (J) ,t - 181 9 Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the select fill resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of select fill as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and select fill resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 ,# �� 1. A (.a` 18I 0 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The elimination of any of the select fill resources identi- fied could have impacts on the availability of those resources within the 20 -year planning period. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 7 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 390 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if select fill had to be brought in from greater distances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Select Fill Resource and Conflictin Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the con- flicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are impor- tant relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the select fill resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 a.01 - 1822 b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; �. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the select fill resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient select fill resources to meet the County's select fill needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the select fill resource 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 i 0 1 - 1813 and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the select fill resource from con- flicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other select fill sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient select fill resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #390 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MAP 3. DOGAMI RECLAMATION PERMIT 10/20/87 4. DOGAMI ON-SITE INSPECTION REPORT 11/19/86 5. DOGAMI RECLAMATION PERMIT 10/9/86 6. DOGAMI ON-SITE INSPECTION REPORT 1/10/85 7. DOGAMI OPERATING PERMIT 10/11/84 8. DOGAMI OPERATING PERMIT 9/27/83 9. DOGAMI ON-SITE INSPECTION REPORT 8/11/83 10. DOGAMI OPERATING PERMIT 11/9/82 11. DOGAMI ON SITE INSPECTION REPORT 7/15/81 12. DOGAMI OPERATING PERMIT 10/26/82 13. NOTIFICATION MAPS 14. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 15. MEMO FROM LARRY RICE 5/17/89 16. MEMO FROM LARRY RICE 12/5/88 17. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP IS. 3oa21Gomrri� ssionus Rmci nci m amcil s ICL. -boa.-rdCornrriaaslor�us Z:Aa�Slon, rnIn&4 s j.oI - 18'4 A ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 391 Pit -, 1825 Site Number 391, occupying tax lot 200 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 21, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 21, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 391 comprises approximately 66.7 acres and is located on the south side of Knott Road approximately one-eighth mile west of 15th Street south of Bend. The site is owned by Central Oregon Pumice and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, MUA=10, RS and RL. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 OJI - 1826 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and considerable information on prior site plan approvals by the County on the historic mining of the site. There is a letter from the appli- cant discussing the type and value of the resource located on the site and there was considerable testimony at the public hearing from the property owner and neighboring property owners in opposition to surface mining on the site. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 500,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site has been mined for cinders since the 19501s. The site is located south of Knott Road and has paved access. The site is relatively well screened from the surrounding neighborhood due to berms created by prior mining. Land use in the surrounding area consists of hobby farms on parcels of 2.5 to 5 acres in size to east, south and west. To the north is the Bend urban growth boundary with subdivisions on lots of 12,000 to 20,000 square feet. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts. There are no particular natural resource conflicts which have been identified for this site. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the residential zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RL, RS, MUA-10 and RR -10 zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 ca 1827 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are numerous homes within close proximity to the site. There is an undeveloped subdivision nearby, but it is not possible to predict to what extent it is likely to be developed. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 r� 18219 failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Knott Road, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 101 - 1830 the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to the Bend urban area would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for the Bend urban area. d. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 18 J I Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records Of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 :>`,3 0 101 - 1832 The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 -i 0 l - 1833 environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 1,01 - 1834 County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; d. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #391 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. MEMO FROM CENTRAL OREGON PUMICE CO. REGARDING MINING PROPERTY 4. MINING PROPERTY (1/3/78 DESCHUTES COUNTY) 5. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/30/87 6. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/13/87 7. LETTER FROM WILLIAM E. MILLER DATED 7/2/86 8. LETTER FROM WILLIAM E. MILLER DATED 7/2/86 9. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/12/85 10. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 1/28/85 11. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/17/84 12. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/10/84 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/6/83 14. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/14/82 15. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/7/81 16. LETTER FROM WILLIAM E. MILLER DATED 8/19/81 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 7/15/81 18. LETTER TO BILL MILLER DATED 6/11/81 19. LETTER FROM WILLIAM E. MILLER DATED 6/19/81 20. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 10/22/80 21. MEMO TO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATED 10/16/80 10 1837 22. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DEPT DATED 7/9/80 23. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 7/9/80 24. LETTER FROM PAUL OMOHUNDRO DATED 7/8/80 25. FINDINGS & DECISION DATED 6/25/80 26. STAFF REPORT DATED 5/27/80 27. LETTER FROM PAUL OMOHUNDRO DATED 5/27/80 28. LETTER FROM MIKE & RENEE LEFEVER DATED 5/27/80 29. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 5/27/80 30. LETTER FROM BEVERLY D. CAMPBELL DATED 5/23/80 31. LETTER FROM T.F. BECKER DATED 5/20/80 32. MEMO FROM DULL THOMPSON DATED 5/7/80 33. LOOK UP SHEETS 34. MAILING LIST FOR SITE PLAN TRANSMITTALS 35. SET OF REVISED TRANSMITTAL LETTERS FOR ZONE CHANGE 36. ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 37. APPLICATION REVIEW FILE SHEET 38. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/4/79 39. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/9/78 40. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/11/77 41. APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 12/26/74 42. GRAPH OF MINED LAND RECLAMATION PLAN 43. ORDINANCE #80-210 44. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES 45. CENTRAL OREGON PUMICE MINING RESOURCE INVENTORY 46. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 2 47. NOTIFICATION MAPS 48. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 49. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 50. LETTER FROM MERRIFIELD 51. LeAce a -to -'99 5Z• Lo,m►�.sss,orx� h�ar't mjnw-" g'S• 3cD�d O �DmmibsWtlu'S�C,a,s�on Minim 3 101 -, 1839 ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION Site No. 392 Site Number 392, occupying a portion of Tax Lot 300 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 23, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on May 16, 1989. On July 19, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the site, listed on the County's inventory of mineral and aggregate resources, should be classified under the county's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site Number 392 is located one-half mile east of Knott Road on Arnold Market Road. The site is bounded on the north and east by Arnold Market Road and on the south by Black Alley Road. The site is owned by Rose & Associates, a partnership, and is zoned SMR. Surrounding property is zoned MUA-10, EFU-20, UAR-10 and SM. The site was identified as containing two mineral and aggregate resources. The mineral and aggregate resources were crushable basalt and an alluvial sand/gravel deposit (fill material). The site was identified on the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate Inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone the site under Statewide Planning Goal 5 to protect the aggregate and mineral resources on the property. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was prepared setting forth the site's aggregate and mineral resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and - 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting value or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the owner and from numerous neighbors in the vicinity of the property, including the testimony of Lewis Scott, a geo-technical engineer. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit "A". ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. INVENTORY. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inventory establishes that the site has 7-1/2 million cubic yards of aggregate and 7-1/2 million cubic yards of sand gravel. A May 10, 1983, Century West Engineering report identified a proposed quarry site to be located on the northwest corner of the site. The basalt was proposed to be mined and crushed to produce road aggregate in three-eighths inch to one-eighth size fractions. A January 6, 1989 laboratory test report by Professional Service Industries, Inc. identified two samples submitted for analysis as being of such quality as to meet ODOT specifications for road material. Joel Smith, a registered professional engineer, estimated the quantity of material to be 7.5 million cubic yards. No core samples were taken to verify the estimate. A July 23, 1980 Century West Engineering report identified approximately 7.5 million yards of fill material on the site. This material is an alluvial sand gravel deposit with prevalent coarse to medium grain size characteristics. These materials contain relatively low pumice or cinder fractions, a probable result of winnowing action of water that removed or broke down light weight, variable particles. The resulting sand gravel deposits are of relatively high durability as a consequence. 2. SITE CHARACTERISTICS. This site is located one-half mile east of Knott Road on Arnold Market Road. The site is bounded on the north and east by Arnold Market Road and on the south by Black Alley Road. There is access to the site from all of these roads. The site is mostly level with some elevation gain on the south end. There is good soil cover on the level areas of the site. The south end and southeast corner have exposed basalt. The front field is the lowest elevation with some elevation gain to a middle field and hilly on the south end of the site. Within 250 feet of the site is the Knott Landfill to the - 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) T�7 north across the street on Arnold Market Road. There are BPA lines running diagonally through the site from the northeast to the southwest. To the east of the property is Arnold Market Road. On the east side of Arnold Market Road are larger acreage residential properties. To the south are rural residential acreage properties. To the west are residential acreage properties. The homes to the west are typically on larger acreages and are better quality homes. The home directly west of the north end is an older average quality home. The homes to the west and south are at higher elevations than the subject property. To the south are homes which have their views looking across the subject site at the terrain to the north and northeast. The homes to the south are typically average or less quality. 3. CONFLICTS ANALYSIS. a. GOAL 5 CONFLICTS. NATURAL RESOURCES: (1) WILDLIFE: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as being an important deer use area. Several letters from area residents identified the possible use of the area by the Great Horned Owl and Bald Eagles. (2) OPEN SPACE VALUES: Open space enhances the existing scenic resources of this site because it promotes a visually attractive environment. The site is zoned SMR. CONFLICTS: Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of the excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site and the building of infrastructure, such as access roads and fences and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impact on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust and construction of access roads and a nominal increase risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. b. LAND USE CONFLICTS. LAND USES: There are approximately 49 parcels of - 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) L01 - 1842 land within one-half mile of the proposed mining site that are either developed residential properties in conjunction with the farm use or could be developed with residences in conjunction with the farm use. Land uses and the zoning surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix "A" to the staff report in the MUA-10, SM and EFU-20 sections of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. CONFLICTS: The Board finds that conflicts with the use at the site and in the surrounding area would include: AT THE SITE• (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses on the property to the extent that the utilization of the property for surface mining would occupy a portion of the property to the exclusion of other uses. SURROUNDING ZONES (EFU-20, UAR-10 & SM) (1) The impact of noise, including heavy equipment and truck traffic on persons dwelling in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that existing residential development in the area would be adversely affected. Many of the residents in the immediate area testified concerning the probable impacts of noise. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive areas. The Board finds that residential -type uses are dust -sensitive areas due to the impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on the public safety. (4) The impact to aesthetic values due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of a surface mining operation into this rural setting. (5) The impact of blasting to remove the aggregate material would be significant to nearby residents. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflicting uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. The Board finds that property immediately adjacent to the site is committed to a landfill and to surface mining uses with the historical removal of fill material. Such surrounding development lowers the conflict at this site. - 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) 01 1843 RESOURCE CONFLICTS Protection of the Aggregate and Fill Material Resource 4. ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate and fill material in conflict with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a potential reduction in property values during the utilization of the resources. 5. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that the social consequences of protecting the fill material resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife and scenic attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine is reduced by the fact of the proximity of the Knott Landfill. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic qualities of the area. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which could force some wildlife to leave the area to find other food sources and cover. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views from surrounding properties would be adversely affected by fugitive dust. 7. ENERGY CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that the energy consequences of protecting the aggregate and fill material resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consumption at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment, as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate and fill materials are resources that are needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located within one-quarter mile of the Bend market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this that are convenient to the urban market area and processing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting the material to its point of use. - 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10)A� �t► 1844 PROTECTION OF GOAL 5 RESOURCES 8. ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. Protection of the wildlife and scenic resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that the fill material identified with the site is of limited supply in the County. The Knott Landfill is no longer making the resource available to local users to the extent that fill material would need to be hauled in from outside the area. The costs would be increased by haulage costs which the Board finds to be at the rate of 22 cents per ton mile. In addition, cost of transportation within the County is an important factor. Preservation of this resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. The Board finds that this site is located immediately adjacent to the Bend market area and that consequently preservation of the material at this site can lead to lower prices than use of the fill material resource located further away. The Board has made findings regarding the available supply of aggregate material in Deschutes County and the need for preservation of the material in reviewing other sites. 9. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES. Preserving the natural resources at this site would have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of material are preserved. The fill material is used in all forms of construction. There could be increased costs from a shortage of readily available aggregate and fill material. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic and scarring of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food associated with surface mining is not consistent with protection of scenic and wildlife values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limited mining would have positive environmental consequences. The area is not, however, identified as a significant wildlife habitat. 11. ENERGY CONSEQUENCES. As mentioned above, the energy consequences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market area would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. RELATIVE VALUES OF THE CONFLICTING RESOURCES. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the fill material and natural resources are important relative to one another. However, based on the same ESEE consequences, the Board finds that the aggregate material is not 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) J.0 , 1845 as important relative to the conflicting resources and should not be protected because of the significant negative impacts of blasting and crushing on adjoining residents and the uncertainty of the quality and quantity of the aggregate resource. These findings are based upon the following facts: a. Adequate local supplies of quality fill material are important to the Deschutes County economy. b. Considering the quantity, quality and location of this site close to the Bend urban area market, this is an important fill material deposit. c. This site is adjacent to an existing landfill. d. The negative impacts on adjoining residents of blasting and crushing aggregate would be significant. Therefore, the Board finds that the fill material resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. The aggregate resource should not be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), protection of the fill material resource shall be limited by the protection of the natural resources, and the aggregate resource should not be protected. CONFLICTING USES Protection of Mineral Resources 13. ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. The economic consequences of protecting the fill material resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of the material as a commercial commodity and the development opportunities foregone by development of the site. Neighboring residents expressed concern about their property values. While impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates there there was no drastic fluctuations in the property values. The same analysis shows there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. Allowing surface mining activities at this site would have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to use the - 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) d1! 101 - 1846 property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES. Preserving this site for the production of fill material resources could have an impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions and truck traffic could negatively impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. The Board finds that such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 15. ENERGY CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of fill material would have an overall positive energy consequence. As stated above, the energy consumed on the site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for this resource. Haul distances to urban market areas would be minimized. 16. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental consequences set forth under paragraph 6 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated through environmental controls on the mining operation. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the landscape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. Almost every surface mining site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. There is also further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of material that are located close to a market area. 18. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that the social consequences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. - 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10),�, co 19. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. If the site and surrounding land uses become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively impacted by increased residential development. 20. ENERGY CONSEQUENCES. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption because needed fill material resources would have to come from sites located further away. 21. RELATIVE VALUES OF FILL MATERIAL RESOURCE USE AND CONFLICTING USES. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of fill material are important to the economy of Deschutes County. (b) Fill material resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. (c) The site is located adjacent to the Bend urban market. This is an important fact given the haul costs for hauling this material. (d) The site is adjacent to the existing Knott Pit Landfill where fill material has been removed in the past. (e) Existing residential uses are important in that represent a commitment by the property owners to develop and occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. - 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) .1.x.)1 ^ 1848 Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the fill material resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect the fill material resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the property will be zoned Surface Mining subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) This site will be mined for fill material only. (b) There will be no aggregate mining or blasting. (c) No processing shall be allowed on site. (d) Water shall be transferred to the site for reclamation purposes. (e) The hours of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No activity on weekends or holidays. (f) The property shall be developed with a one to three slope with a maximum depth of 60 feet. (g) Revegetation shall be required in the reclamation plan. If the excavated holes are filled with waste rock, there shall be a minimum of four feet of topsoil on top of the rock. No landfill or solid waste materials shall be deposited in the holes. (h) Applicable DEQ noise standards shall be met. (i) The appropriate portion of the haul road shall be paved and that portion of the haul road that is not feasible to be paved shall be treated with water or oil or other dust abatement techniques. (j) The site shall be fenced and gated. (k) To the greatest extent possible, the property shall be visually screened from site from surrounding neighbors. (1) The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be consulted and have the opportunity to indicate when mule deer would be in the area and when the site activity might be curtailed. - 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) 101 1 349 (m) Access shall be provided for the site from the north onto Arnold Market Road. (n) A maximum of five acres at a time be mined, with concurrent reclamation. (o) That dust control techniques meet DEQ standards, including the haul road. (p) That if there is extraordinary wind activity where material is being carried off-site that the site shall be closed during such periods. (q) Operational strategy such as trying to minimize dust impact of stockpiles shall be incorporated in the reclamation plan. CONFLICTING RESOURCES 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering, the mitigating noise and visual impacts, the restrictions on hours of operation, the five -acre limit on excavation, and the reclamation plan conditions. The Board finds that the screening and buffering provisions of the Ordinance No. 90-014 meet the ESEE screening and buffering requirements for this site. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting mineral and aggregate resources, since the site will be allowed to be mined. MINERAL RESOURCE 24. The Board will protect the fill material resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014 allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. - 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) 101 - 1850 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer surrounding the SM zone, as set forth in Ordinance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the city of Bend. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflicting future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the county's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. LAND USES 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise standards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. - 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10)w<.�;� o710 �:' • EXHIBIT SCHEDULE SITE N0. 392 Date Color Received Exhibit Description Code Page Appraisals Peach 13 Aerial Map Peach 15 Petitions Peach 126 Photos of Site Peach 93 Newspaper Clipping Blue 77 Letter from Sandy Young Peach 95 Map Gray 76 Map Gray 75 Test Hole Data Gray 82 Maps of Site Yellow 2 77 01-18 Volume Estimate Blue 56 77 01-19 Letter from Century West Engineering Blue 55 77 01-19 Letter from Jeff Daggett Blue 54 83 04-16 Map Peach 14 83 05-10 Letter from Century West Engineering Gray 67 88 02-23 Sale Agreement Peach 128 88 03-08 Letter from Joan Hale Blue 58 88 06-13 Letter from Edward Sullivan Peach 16 06-14 Letter from Karen Green Peach 17 i88 '88 06-16 Petitions Gray 12 88 06-16 Letter from Tom Throop Blue 59 88 06-23 Letter from Ed Sullivan Blue 57 88 07-11 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 18 88 10-06 Letter from Scott Geotechnical Services Peach 19 88 10-11 Letter from Bob Lovlien Blue 60 88 10-11 Letter from Robert Lovlien Gray 3 88 10-18 Letter from Robert Deacon Peach 20 88 10-24 Letter from.Joel G. Smith Gray 4 88 11-07 Letter from Scott Geotechnical Services Peach 21 88 11-09 Letter from Karen Green Blue 61 88 11-09 Letter from Edward Sullivan Peach 22 88 11-18 Letter from Joel G. Smith Peach 23 88 11-23 Letter from Bob Lovlien Blue 62 88 11-23 Letter from Robert Lovlien Gray 5- 88 11-28 Letter from Paul Bianchina Peach 114 88 12-01 Memorandum from Karen Green Blue 63 89 01-06 Letter from Professional Service Ind., Inc. Gray 6 89 01-06 Sample Testing Results (PSI) Gray 81 89 01-09 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 24 89 01-13 Sale Agreement ` Peach 127 89 01-16 Geotechnical Evaluation/Century West Gray 68 89 01-19 Letter from Lester Alford • Peach 109 89.01-26 Letter from Michael Broadbent Peach 25 89 01-27 Letter from Lester Alford Peach 26 16939 01-30 Letter from Nancy & Hugh McGilvray Peach 30 X89 01-30 Letter from the Pedersen's and the Grahams Peach 29 89 01-30 Letter from Joan Hale Peach 27 o710 �:' 1852 �89 01-30 Letter from Dennis Henekin & Christine Kerlin Peach 28 89 01-31 Letter from Patricia Gainsforth Blue 64 89 02-04 Appraisal From Robert Bancroft Yellow 1 89 02-10 Letter from Professional Service Ind., Inc. Gray 7 89 02-21 Letter from Paul & Annece Davis Peach 108 89 02-28 Response to Staff Report from -Bob Lovlien Gray 8 89 02-28 Letter from Fred & Susan Smith Peach 31 89 02-28 Letter from T. Marie Peoples Peach 32 89 02-28 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Wolff Peach 35 89 02-28 Letter from Bruce A. Estes Peach 34 89 02-28 Letter from Don S. Ferguson Peach 33 89 03-01 Hearing Sign-up Sheet Blue 92 89 03-01 BOCC Hearing Minutes Fuchsia 66 89 03-01 Letter from Ric Ergenbright Peach 113 89 03-02 Rock Volume Computations Peach 36 89 03-02 Xerox Aerial Map Peach 37 89 03-02 Letter from Matthew Steele Peach 110 89 03-03 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 107 89 03-03 Letter from John & Venita Dick Peach 38- 89 03-05 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. R. Wolff Peach 39 89 03-05 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. R. Wolff Peach 40 89 03-05 Letter from Glenn Maroe Peach 106 89 03-06 Letter from Karen Green Peach 41 89 03-06 Letter from Joel G. Smith Gray 9 89 03-06 Letter from Franklin Gist Peach 42 89 03-08 Letter from Bob Lovlien Peach 105 89 03-09 Letter from Joan Hale Peach 73 89 03-09 Letter from Kenyon Thompson Peach 44 89 03-10 Letter from Kitty Warner Peach 96 89 03-10 Letter from Gene & Sally Wegner Peach 103 89 03-10 Letter from Lester Alford Peach 104 89 03-10 SE Property Owners Assoc. Concluding Comments Peach 94 89 03-10 Letter from Ric Ergenbright Peach 124 89 03-10 Letter from Michael Broadbent Peach 115 89 03-10 Letter from Jill Ergenbright Peach 45 89 03-10 Letter from Bill & Ann Thomason Peach 43 89 03-10 Letter from Christine Kerlin Peach 97 89 03-12 Letter from Sam McCoy Peach 101 89 03-13 Letter from Mary Dinges Peach 122 89 03-13 Letter from Charles Anderson Peach 98 89 03-13 Letter from Dwane & Jane Manwiller Peach 99 89 03-13 Letter from the Edwards Peach 125 89 03-13 Letter from Jeff & Sue Heath Peach 117 89 03-14 Letter from Jacob & Susan Schlepp Peach 116 89 03-14 Letter from Bobby & Billie Kitchens Peach 118. 89 03-14 Letter from the Browns Peach 120 89 03-14 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Richard Poole Peach 119 89 03-14 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Comford Gray 86 89 03-14 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Comford Peach 123 89 03-15 Letter from Kenyon Thompson Gray 88 89 03-15 Letter from Daniel McCleery, MD Peach 102 9 089 03-15 Letter from Debra Jordon Peach 112 03-16 Letter from Sam McCoy Gray 87 89 03-16 Letter from Cynthia Luelling Gray 85 03-20 Letter from James Carnahan Gray 84 03-20 Letter from James Carnahan Peach 100 04-06. Letter from P/W to Dirt Permittees Blue 90' 04-10 Letter from Jeff Fields Peach 74' 04-10 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 72 04-12 'Letter from Jeff Fields Gray •83• 04-21 Letter from Sally Wegner (ODOT) Buff 80 05-08 Letter from Stephen R. Rogers, M.D. Peach 46 05-09 Memorandum from Dick Johnson (P/W) Blue 89 05-15 Letter from Christine Kerlin Peach 47 05-15 Letter from Harry Farley Peach 48 05-16 Letter from Franklin Gist Peach 121 05-16 Hearing Sign-up Sheet Blue 91 05-16 Letter from Mary Dinges Peach 49 05-16 Letter from Pat Gainsforth Peach 111 05-17 Memorandum from Larry Rice Blue 70 05-19 Letter from Karen Green Peach 51 05-22 Letter & Comments from Ed Sullivan Peach 53 05-22 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 52 05-22 Letter from John Skillern Peach 50 05-24 Letter from Clifford (Bud) Rose Gray 10 07-14 Letter from Sally Wegner Peach 78 07-19 BOCC Decision Minutes Fuchsia 65 07-23 Letter from Century West Engineering Gray 11 08-31 Letter from Robert Deacon Blue 71 09-18 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 79 04-04 Letter from Joel Smith Blue 69 > - -" ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 393 Site Number 393, occupying tax lot 1400 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 25, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should [not] be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 393 comprises approximately 60 acres and is located Horse Butte, approximately four miles southwest of Bend. The site is owned by Babler Brothers, Inc. is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU-20 and F-3. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the econo- mic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the con- flicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appriaser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding area was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 393 • Testimony was also received from numerous surrounding property owners as well as the subject property owner. The site was originally placed on the inventory based on evidence from 1978 that were 12 million cubic yards of cinders and fill on the subject site. This was submitted by Hap Taylor who was the owner of the property at that time. A letter from Babler Brothers, Inc. received by the Planning Division on March 21, 1988, indi- cated that there was not sufficient quality or quantity of cinders on the site to warrant continuing the surface mining zoning. The letter specifically states that the site no longer has value as a surface mine. Additional testimony in the record indicated that the site is surrounded by rural residential homesites and small farms. Letters indicate that truck traffic on the narrow rural roads would create significant impacts on the nature of the neighborhood. There was considerable public testimony in opposition to this site being zoned for surface mining. Due to the testimony that the site contains no valuable resource at this time, the Board finds that there is no resource to protect at this site and therefore removes it from the surface mining inventory. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 393 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #393 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. HAP TAYLOR INC. CINDER PIT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SHEET 4. LETTER FROM ALAN WADE DATED 3/18/88 5. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 6/24/87 6. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 6/23/86 7. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/17/85 8. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/1/84 9. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/16/84 10. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 7/22/82 11. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/1/83 12. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/23/82 13. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 10/22/81 14. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 10/20/81 15. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 10/2/81 16. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/12/81 17. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/6/80 18. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/29/80 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/13/79 20. APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 8/17/76 21. DOGAMI RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 7/26/88 22. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT t:) °1857 23. NOTIFICATION MAP 24. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 25. LETTER FROM JOANNE & HAROLD MCBRIDE 8/15/89 26. LETTER FROM HAROLD MCBRIDE 7/15/89 27. LETTER FROM ETHEL MIKALICH 8/15/89 28. LETTER FROM THOMAS G. FOXWORTH 8/9/89 29. LETTER FROM GAIL & JIM VENNER 8/21/89 30. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 9/8/89 31, la,#e✓ kom o-Dv R com4 q -to -V 32,t`3a321 CamrY;�ssic�nersd�h�cic�min�5 33. 21 0 corY.rn's loners 1meCdeclston rri�n s 2 l wl - '1858 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 394 Site Number 394, occupying tax lot 4400 and 4411 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Sections 30 and 31, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 394 comprises approximately 12 acres and is located east of Highway 97 near the truck weigh station south of Bend. The site is owned by Robert Windlinx and is zoned SM and SMR. Adjacent land is zoned SM, RR -10, F-2 and LM. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 A list of the contentsofthe record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 270 cubic yards of course red cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site consists of two sites surrounding an existing State of Oregon cinder pit. The cinders have been used in the past for various road pur- poses, including sanding of highways. Access to the subject site is off of the old abandoned portion of Highway 97 from the state way station off -ramp. The site is comprised of gently rolling hills with natural vegetation of large pine trees, sagebrush and grasses. The site is within one-half mile of Deschutes River Woods subdivision and is located within the LM zone along Highway 97. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2. Impacts on deer would include further destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by continued surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and continued human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 41 01 - 1862 have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Conseguences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 ` AY1A�t o l - 1863 such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 tt 1864 protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 r All - 1665 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 jot - 1867 mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 i,fj I - 18 6 8 The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 ,a ter. mile to storage and processing applicant can demonstrate that not cause a mining operation to standards; and ifjt 1869 sites only if the the proposed use will violate the siting b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 • H TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #394 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. MAP 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. LETTER FROM DON KERR 5/26/89 6. NOTIFICATION MAPS 7. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 8. LETTER FROM D. KERR DATED 8/4/89 9. SAME AS ABOVE 10. APPLICANTS PLOT MAP OF PROPERTY III —&ad d Cc ileac- cwx 1Z, 17,E D comm br s dGja�skon m,�nu-tLz, �► � ; ��70, Czx� � �J � o ccx�oa- �c� f VP v ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 395 of - 1871 Site Number 395, occupying tax lot 4300 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 30, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 395 comprises approximately 22 acres and is located approxmately one-quarter mile east of Hghway 97 near the way station south of Bend. The site is owned by the State of Oregon and is zoned SM. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is just east of Highway 97 at the way station south of Bend. Access is off the dirt road at the end of the way station off -ramp. The site is an active cinder pit on the side of a small butte. The site is naturally vegetated with pine trees, sagebrush and juniper. No utilities or other improvements are located on the site. The site is located within a larger mining reserve area owned by Robert Windlinx and identified as site 394. Surrounding land uses include forest with large pine trees and Deschutes River Woods subdivision to the west across Highway 97. The closest lots are approximately one-quarter mile from the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent F-2 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include [further] destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by [continued] surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and [continued] human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migra- tion. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 i(j-t - :18Y3 The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-2 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 y`�jc 1 L t ,1 -� 18 "r' The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 18 17 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highways 20 and 126. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. f. Highway 126 is the main highway between the cities of Sisters and Redmond and site 248 is readily visible from the highway. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 i0l M'180 operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 10 L - 1880 mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 '01 - 1881 The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 3J78 waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 I TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #395 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/10/87 4. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/17/86 5. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/1/85 6. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/29/83 7. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/26/83 S. REPORT ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/22/83 9. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/16/88 10. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 11. NOTIFICATION MAPS 12. TOPO MAP MYLAR 13. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 14' ^BM(d C� Mtrf►4S�pf1LtS hesc=t C m i �wb�..d t5. "60a."d Cmrnm��orKfs`L�c:�S'�an ni�ns of - 1883 i. (J .1 ., '1884 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 400 Site Number 400, occupying tax lots 4501 and 4502 in Town- ship 18 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 15, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Maudlin dissenting, that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 400 comprises approximately 80 acres, of which the easterly most 40 acres is proposed for surface mining and is located on the northeast edge of the Conestoga Hills subdivision 10 miles east of Bend. The site is owned by Eric Coats and is zoned EFU-40. Surrounding property is zoned RR -10 and EFU-40. The staff report indicates that surrounding areas are zoned LM; however the area is not within the LM zone protecting the views along Highway 20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 i{j.1 "'1855 protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site; from Mr. Coats and his wife and their expert, concerning aggre- gate values for the site; from nearby residents of the Conestoga Hills subdivision and their experts as to the value of the aggre- gate at the site and the conflicts that a surface mine would have with natural resource values at the site and the surrounding residential uses; and from Avion Water concerning the possible effects of the surface mine on the Conestoga Hills water supply. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 1.6 million cubic yards of poor quality rock. During the ESEE hearing both propo- nents and opponents put on evidence concerning the quality and quantity of the aggregate resource at the site. The Board's inventory findings on this site are set forth in the inventory ordinance, Deschutes County Ordinance No. 90-025. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is undeveloped open space and has natural vegetation of juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. The site is surrounded primarily by vacant lands, except for the Conestoga Hills subdivision to the immediate southwest of the site. The Conestoga Hills subdivision is a rural subdivision of five -acre lots containing average to good quality homes. The subdivision was platted in 1977 and was conceived as a quiet rural residential area, with strict covenants to ensure that homeowners would maintain that atmosphere. Although there are some vacant lots, many of the platted lots have been built upon. The testimony shows that many of the residents chose to purchase lots in the Conestoga Development after an extensive search of available homesites within the County. Their reasons for choosing Conestoga Hills was almost uniformly because of the peace and tran- quility of the surrounding area and, in many cases, because of the outstanding views of surrounding open spaces. Site 400 would be located within one-quarter mile of the nearest home. Mr. Coats has previously been excavating topsoil at the site. No County permits have been issued for that excava- tion. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 it) 11, , 1886 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as being a part of the North Paulina deer winter range, with medium frequency of use. The North Paulina winter range winters approxi- mately 5500 deer. The County's comprehensive plan places the site immediately adjacent to deer winter range. Testimony of area residents confirmed the presence of deer in the area. ODF&W has also identified the site as having medium - sensitive raptor use. Area residents testified that red-tailed hawks, sharp -shinned hawks, and bald eagles have been observed in the area. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and testimony from Conestoga Hills resi- dents, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. In addition, the board finds that the nature of the aggregate at the site would require extensive blasting. The impact of all this would generally be to displace deer from such areas. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife values in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 �, iol - 1887 b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-40 and the RR -10 zone at and surround- ing the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The County Comprehensive Plan shows that, although an allowed uses, forestry uses would not occur due to the incompatible soils at the site. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, and processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensi- tive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses at the site and surrounding zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. Opponent's noise expert testified that the area has a low ambient noise level and that due to the location of the Conestoga Hills development on a plateau above and adjacent to the surface mining operation, DEQ noise levels could not be met. This assessment was seconded by the opponent's geologist, who noted that the nearest residence was 450 yards distance from the east or west parcel quarry site and that the location of that residence on a ridge crest would prevent berms from dampening the sound. Neighborhood residents testified that they can hear the blasting from Mr. Coats' present mining activities at the site. In addition, there was testimony that Mr. Coats' presently uses Chisolm Trail through portions of their subdivision for transport of excavated materials, bringing with it unwanted truck noise. Another resident expressed concerns about the effects of surface mining noise on her horses. She testified that her horses run away from noise and that if blast- ing were to occur at the site, she would not be able to ride her horses, fearing for the safety of her and her horses should she be riding them when blasting occurred. 2. The impact of dust on subdivision residents neighboring the surface mine. The board finds credible the testi- 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 mony of adjacent landowner Heagney with respect to the impacts of dust from surface mining operations. He testified, based upon his 11 -year experience working in the cement business, that the dust kicked up by surface mining operations is abrasiveandis not ordinary household dust. He testified that it can damage the paint on vehicles and houses, even at a distance of a couple of miles. He further testified that such dust can be a health hazard. At least one resident of the Conestoga Hills subdivision testified that she had asthma and that the dust from surface mining at the site could be a health hazard to her. Other residents testified that the dust from the surface mine could interfere with their views of the Cascades and the surrounding high desert. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. Conestoga residents testified that Mr. Coats' present use of Chisolm Trail through a portion of their subdivision endangered the safety of them and their children. One resident observed one of Mr. Coats' dump trucks driving through the subdivision at a speed of 55-60 miles per hour. The impacts of truck traffic could be eliminated if access to the site were solely from Highway 20. There is evidence that Mr. Coats has no permission to access this site through the subdivi- sion; therefore it is likely that he would be forced to use the Highway 20 access and traffic impacts would cease. 4. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. Several residents spoke to the fact that they chose to purchase homesites in the Conestoga subdivision due to the natural beauty of the area and specifically checked the zoning prior to purchasing to determine whether the area had surface mining activity nearby. Some home - sites would be located within approximately 1400 feet of the surface mine. Although the staff report and testimony from the applicant indicates that the topo- graphy and orientation of the ridge at the site would insulate the Conestoga homesites from the pit, the Board finds that residents would at least be able to see fugitive dust emissions. 5. Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. This could impact all uses in the EFU-40 zone, except that agricultural uses could be made on the unexcavated portions of the property. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 f)l -:1889 6. There was testimony that siting a surface mine adjacent to homesites could cause a loss in property values and loss of salability of residential properties in the area. In particular, there was testimony that the sale of two homes fell through due to the proposed surface mining operation. The Board finds that in general there is no loss of sales or property values associated with surface mines, as is further discussed below. 7. Jan Wick, of Avion Water testified that the proposed surface mine would be located near the well that supplies the Conestoga Hills subdivision and raised concerns that the site owner had supplied insufficient information to evaluate threats to that water supply. He identified those threats to be possible pollution of the water source and interruption of the well's flow due to alterations of the subsurface strata induced by blasting of the rock at the site. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, all possible uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses, only residential uses presently occur. The Board finds from the testimony of Mr. Jan Wick, of Avion Water, that there are at least 80 existing homes in the Conestoga Hills subdivision. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and open space do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife. The social consequences 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 )l 1890 of such impacts would be the reduced wildlife viewing oppor- tunities to area residents. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that preservation of this site would likely have overall positive energy consequences due to the fact that this site is located closer to development activities on the southeast side of Bend than any other commercial site. It is unlikely that material from the site would be used for highway construction jobs in the Highway 20 cor- ridor, since the Oregon State Highway Division has numerous aggregate sites along that route. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 .L 01 - 1891 year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The Board finds that the aggre- gate source at this site is of poor quality and would require extensive blasting, increasing the cost of producing the aggregate material. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 I(III --`1.802 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environ- mental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site could involve increased haulage distances of aggregate materials to the development projects occurring on the southeast side of Bend. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would therefore more likely than not have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the wildlife values at the site are relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: a. The aggregate resource is of limited quality. The Board finds that the aggregate source is a Newberry Crater lava flow. The neighbor's expert geologist, Mr. Lewis Scott, testified that in general the Newberry Crater lava flows are too poor in quality to meet standards for paving and concrete aggregates. He further testified that ODOT, USFS, and DOGAMI publication 89 materials showed no quarry sites located in those flows and that accordingly, a systematic subsurface testing program would be necessary. His testimony as to the general quality of the Newberry basalt flows is substantiated by the testimony of independent consulting geologist Robert Deacon and Mr. Roland Van Cleave, Senior Geologist for the ODOT Bend Office. His testimony that subsurface testing should be required of all Newberry Crater lava flows is supported by similar conclusions of Messrs. Van Cleave and Deacon. While Mr. Coats produced evidence of testing tending to show that the aggregate source at the site met ODOT standards, the Board finds that no testing of subsur- face rock occurred. Therefore, the Board discounts the results of lab testing on quality offered by Mr. Coats. Furthermore, the testimony of Mr. Scott indicates that due to the nature of the basalt, extensive blasting would be required to excavate and process the rock. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 3.01 1883 The Board finds that other sources of aggregate, such as river run sand and gravel deposits, require less processing. In light of this fact, the Board finds that compared to other sites containing river run aggregate, the value of the aggregate resource at this site is not as great at sites with such deposits. b. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. C. Deer habitat in the County is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, Board finds that the conflicting deer habitat value should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2) the conflicting natural resource value of deer habitat should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. Residents of the Conestoga subdivision provided anecdotal evidence that property values in the subdivision would decline and that sales of property in the area had fallen through because of Mr. Coats' proposed surface mine. The Board finds that while the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 fl �. 1894 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by Conestoga Hills residents, the Board finds that the livabil- ity of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, blasting, and fugitive dust produced by the proposed surface mine. The Board finds that the impacts of truck traffic would not likely occur due to Mr. Coat's lack of legal access to the subdivision from the proposed quarry site. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals could have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to development sites south and east of Bend would compare favorably with haul distances from other sources in the County. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 7 above. In addition, the Board finds that there is a serious con- cern, unanswered by Mr. Coats, about what effect the mining operations might have on the Conestoga Hills water supply. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 1 () 1 1895 well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments on the southeast side of Bend would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting' Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. The Conestoga subdivision has a substantial number of existing homes that were built before the surface mine was proposed; C. The Conestoga subdivision has a high degree of natural amenities, such as scenic views, solitude, and wildlife viewing opportunities that makes it a unique and highly sought after rural residential location. Testimony established that many residents chose to purchase in the Conestoga subdivision after an extensive search and evaluation of other rural subdivisions. d. Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commit- ment is accompanied by important quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting deer habitat resource and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 45,147,000 cubic yards of aggregate, which com- bined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 fi 6, YA — I SURFACE MINING FIXII]BITI-,): 1." 1807 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Set of Maps 3 - Letter fromPatrick C. Lynch dated 3/16/88 4- 5 - 1, -R�— SG k"+ li--z ev- -6 6.V -V Lts 1 - �+� � cap- `'�` ` v'U���` � Cowv►�S l-h`�'f'� q l e4 cN Mew VI J- iz- - kum L( Eric- Le- -.fb2, tzYYQ -ph D�Vs (( -CLA- tDlPC-3 n,nq Corn L rn � d ) Cb Lo - i L, -<;r7 EAC,tk-ccvo` Z''- ,�ij -Z C.. -'-U) A- L Cl 3*2- 3 �rn�.cs�O � 1�d� 10-1 ", 1898 5 -- ---- I �v __ -_ _ _ cid �-(o-� ill � c�. � �.esr` � 9-� -77- Bel ��` _ _-- - --_7�'I� y�� �-� -moi 5-7 _ - ��.Y cos`-�/ - - s �.-�J- -- 61, ZI �Yiazev (�t!C�(( C�;,u �-t�5� � ll� �. ol r, 19 0 0 IN --- A-*d-iA q "- &--- kp 6k.l -_o I [01 1901 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 404 Site Number 404, located in Township 19 South, Range 14 E.W.M., portions of Sections 1, 2 and 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 404 comprises approximately 200 acres and is located approximately one mile north of Highway 20 and one and one-half miles north of Horse Ridge. The site is owned by Gloria and Eugene Moon and is currently zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and WA. Most of the surrounding land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 io l - :1002 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 193 cubic yards of aggregate rock which meets the Oregon Department of Trans- portation specifications for road base and asphalt rock. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is part of a working ranch and is essentially level with rock outcroppings. The site is along the northwestern base of Bear Creek Buttes and no other special features have been noted. The site consists of natural grazing land with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on the subject site. The surrounding area consists of natural range land with no improvements within one-half mile. The subject site is currently being used as a gravel pit. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject site is not within an LM zone, nor is it visible from any public road. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 �4jf� 101 1903 that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 i�. :1904 by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 0_1_ 101L -1 1905 year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 M L0 "t 19GG streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 i 01 - 19 0 7 While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 10,1 - 1908 positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts as- sociated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 Jt�i, au i. -� 1909 such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 1910 (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 ioI - 1911 nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 (0 1 `1 , ( B TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #404 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. LETTER FROM EUGENE MOON DATED 6/9/87 3. LETTER FROM WARD P. CRANE 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & MAP 5. LETTER FROM DOGAMI TO MOONS, 6. NOTIFICATION MAPS 7. STAFF REPORT 8. PLANNING COMMISION RECOMMENDATIONS 9. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP Icy. lew�mrn 0-bF+v4 q-1049 ji.Uacd ob COYrYri►�io�1 �'12c3r'� (Y��•nuS 2, -��i a� Co„,�,��►a,r,,Q,rS �,2eis►o,� rn1 n.u�� 13, 1e -k(- imyr\ '-DoGArm� 1 -3o -z5 i. () -1 Z" --1 J 1 3 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 405 Site Number 405, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 19 South, Range 14 E.W.M., Section 4, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 405 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located on the old Bend -Burns Highway roughly two miles west of the east end of the road just east of the site of the Horse Ridge grade on Highway 20. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned EFU-320 and WA. Adja- cent land is zoned EFU-320, SM, LM and WA. Most of the sur- rounding land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 10 to i. 01 m 1914 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 150,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation standards. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is level, natural range land. Bordering the site is a large gravel pit which runs parallel to the road. The site is fenced and naturally vegetated with juniper and sagebrush. The old highway cuts through the site, and there are no utilities or improvements on the site. The site has been used for surface mining in the past. The road to the subject site is paved. Land in the surrounding area consists of undeveloped range land with no dwellings or other uses within one-half mile. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject site in not within an LM zone. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 and SM zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 =I) T 01 , 1915 physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protec- tion of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 i0l ^ 191G by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortal- ity rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highway 20. the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 P'} Z0l 1917 year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 10 It - 1919 While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve every- day transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 X01 1910 positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 � ()-1 ^ 1921 such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative_ Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 _..& i i i-9. nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 A i0l M 1924 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #405 1. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 9/_0197. 2. MEMO TO CHUCK FROM CRAIG 3. INVENTORY SHEET 4. NOTIFICATION SHEET 5. SAMPLE TEST DATA SHEETS 6. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & MAP 7. STAFF REPORT 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 9. LETTER FROM WM. WALTON lo • 6b comm15s:iorar5 ly(� ry\tnu:b-ls ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 408 Site Number 408, occupying tax lot 1500 in Township 19 South, Range 16 E.W.M., Section 35, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 408 comprises approximately 640 acres and is located approximately three miles west of Route 27 to Prineville and six and one-half miles east of Millican. The site is approx- imately one mile north of Highway 20. The site is owned by R. L. Coats and is currently zoned EFU-320. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320. Most of the surrounding land is owned by State of Oregon and Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 In addition, testimony was received from Norm Behrens of the Department of Fish and Wildlife who testified that this is a critical deer and antelope range. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has three million cubic yards of aggregate which meets the Oregon Department of Transpor- tation standards for base rock and asphalt. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is located within West Butte Ranch, approximately three miles west of Route 27 to Prineville and six and one-half miles east of Millican. The site is approximately one mile north of Highway 20. The subject site is on the northern edge of the Millican valley. The topography slopes up to the north and the site is on a hillside. This is an existing pit. However, there is no evidence in the record that it has ever had a site and reclamation plan approved by the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. There are no dwelling units or other improvements within one-half mile of the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated antelope range, deer winter range and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site is not within an LM zone. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 �0, �; �'�... "7 i('_;i - 19 '4i r scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 ". i )`20 4 I ;,?1.1 '.1l 9 � b) available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 c ' 19 J 0 traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 11 tai "1 19 J., I appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve every- day transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 t.J 19 31 2 surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts as- sociated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Enerqy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 i.0 1 -:1934 (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 h... would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #408 1. SET OF COVER INFORMATION SHEETS 2. SET OF MAPS 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS `t. Ic.-ktcy itbm OAF w q-10-0 8. %oar -rte 06 Cornmit's•oners �Zarirq irtL' &w*tA `- &xLxd nnioa-b� 1.01 1936 A 01 1937 ESEE Findings and Decision Site Nos. 413 and 414 Site Numbers 413 and 414, occupying tax lot 1400 in Township 20 South, Range 15 E.W.M., Section 16, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site numbers 413 and 414 comprises approximately 35 acres and is located at the base of Pine Mountain approximately two and one-half miles south of Highway 20 off of Pine Mountain Road. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is currently zoned SMR and WA. Adjacent land is zoned F-2, EFU-320 and WA. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 =1 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 30,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation quality standards for road base and asphalt. 2. Site Characteristics. The subject site slopes down to the north being on the northern flanks of Pine Mountain. There is a dry creek bed running through the site. The site is naturally vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities in the area. The area to the south of the site is Pine Mountain and to the north in the Millican valley. Land to the southeast and west is Deschutes National Forest. To the north, there are approx- imately 100 parcels ranging in size from five to ten acres. Approximately half of these parcels are within one-half mile of the subject site. There are no dwelling units located on these parcels at this time. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range and antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject property is not within an LM zone. However, the views from Highway 20 toward Pine Mountin are of scenic value. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMID 414 i f,s"3, -, :l.939 Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 and F-2 zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protec- tion of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and antelope habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 i0ll 1" 1940 find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 01 - 194 The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Conseguences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMID 414 01 194 2 protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 o�i 19X13 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMID 414 } ;W;!r() °1944 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMID 414 x.0.1 - 1945 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 , 101 1946 The Board finds that the recommendation of the Planning Commissioner, not to allow processing on this site, was not found to be objectionable to the property owner and there- fore, the Board concurs with the Planning Commission recom- mendation. No processing shall be allowed on this site. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 J TABLE OF CONTENTS i 01 1 - 19 4 8 SITE #413 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. NOTIFICATION MAPS 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. RESOURCE INVENTORY SHEET 6. LETTER FROM PAT SMITH DATED 7/28/89 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 9. RESOURCE LEGEND INVENTORY io, o sone voaj ►►rcj rr1nu l's t� . 'fir. oa,rcl cAmrYi�s Cm TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #414 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE LIST 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 7. COUNTY INVENTORY SHEET Co M rYiA s %Wl XS 6Akrt !f� PU-*wL� (a � ASS' S C�O.+C tsiOfl t'u.n.Zs , a 01 - 19`9 1 ESEE Findings and Decision 1950 Site Nos. 415, 416, 417, 418 and 419 Site Numbers 415, 416, 417, 418 and 419, occupying tax lots 700, 200, 900, 1000 and 1300 in Township 20 South, Range 17 E.W.M., Section 16, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these sites. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject sites, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that these sites should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site numbers 415 (5 acres), 416 (10 acres), 417 (3 acres), 418 (6 acres) and 419 (10 acres) are located on the north side of Highway 20 East at mile marker 38. These sites are owned by Deschutes County and currently zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320, FP, LM and WA. These sites were identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the sites' inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone these sites under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on these sites, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the sites' aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that site 415 has 30,000 cubic yards, site 416 has 30,000 cubic yards, site 417 has 20,000 cubic yards, site 418 has 30,000 cubic yards and site 419 has 30,000 cubic yards of aggregate. This aggregate meets the Oregon Department of Transportation quality standards for road base and asphalt. 2. Site Characteristics. This group of sites run along the north side of Highway 20 East and are on grade with the highway. The sites are level, natural land, vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utili- ties on the sites. The surrounding area is vacant range land. Access to the sites would be directly off of Highway 20 East. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified these sites for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the sites to fall within a designated antelope winter range and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The sites' zoning for LM shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 Land uses on the EFU-20 zone surrounding the sites are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the sites. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the sites or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the sites and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the sites. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the sites to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the sites, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 i ' 'f'1 L(.) I 1953 to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the sites due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at these sites would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the sites. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the sites could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 x �,'o;40 ri 0'1 - 19 J 4 mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that these particular sites standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and con- struction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the sites could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 resources would preclude mining at the sites. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of these sites and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the sites would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the sites. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the sites is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and -from the sites as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at these sites could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the sites and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of these sites for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving these sites for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving these sites for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the sites for mining would have negative environmental consequences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of these sites would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the sites. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts as- sociated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as these that are largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 X01 -1958 on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values -could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at these and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consump- tion because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at these remote sites would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the sites in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at these sites. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the sites will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 101 - 19b9 dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The sites shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the sites will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the sites will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the sites will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the sites SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 L 0 nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the sites for surface mining and protecting the sites from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 CCN i8 it A ,01 - 1961 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #416 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE LEGEND INVENTORY 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 7. MYALR OF TOPO MAP 9. -&64d [d Cc mn�ti�gS�On¢� S bL4 s %a n ml c%%j=L*.s L�Cf+ie�`r,4 . t�a 19 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #416 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE SHEET 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP �. -t lann'tnj reccrnme-ndakion -bow-d O� Gb r�nr� tiss`�o r s has. `► n� v , n u.;k4-S q. 30acd ob n-►%nw±..s i X T A 0411I-) pAoyW490zygWykill SITE #417 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE INVENTORY SHEET 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION -7. -6°a4 O hca-i nq rr 4A" -i s Iot � 1963 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #418 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE INVENTORY SHEET 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP i o I " _1964 W. .Lot - 1965 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 419 Site Number 419, occupying tax lot 1300 in Township 20 South, Range 17, Section 16, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 419 comprises approximately 3 acres and is located along the north side of Highway 20 East, approximately two miles east of Route 27, the Prineville cut-off, at mile marker 38. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is cur- rently zoned Surface Mining and Landscape Management Combining. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 30,000 cubic yards of good to excellent quality gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is essential level, natural land with no special views. The site is on grade with the highway and appears to have adequate drainage. The site is natural vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on the site. The surrounding area is vacant range land. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this are as being an antelope, mule deer and sage grouse use area. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designation of a big game sensitive area for deer winter range and antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM . shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 L011 1967 and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 10-1 19,10 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 rM l9 " everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 10.1 - 1973 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 '14 buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 1 9 Y J The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 1 fAt f TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #419 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3. RESOURCE INFORMATION SHEET 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT 7. MYLAR OF TOPO MAPS S. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION .�4. ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 421 Site Number 421, occupying tax lot 900 in Township 21 South, Range 20 E.W.M., came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 421 comprises approximately 500 acres and is located on the "Barbwire Ranch" east of Harmon Road, approxi- mately one and one-half miles north of Highway 20. The site is owned by R. L. Coats and is currently zoned EFU-320. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320. Most of the surrounding land is owned by R. L. Coats and BLM. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 m A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 500,000 cubic yards of excellent quality gravel which has been used in the past as base rock and asphalt rock for state highway projects. 2. Site Characteristics. The site consists of approximately 40 acres of a 1600 -acre ranch. The immediately surrounding area in natural scrub land vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. The owner has a barn and two dwell- ings on the subject property, however, no neighboring dwellings are within the impact area. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range, antelope range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range and antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. There are no high scenic values on the subject site since it is over two miles from Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could Possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 10 .1 ~ 1980 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and antelope habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. B. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highway 20. the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 101 - 1981 resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 ?,04 1983 of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 such resources. Haul distances to the area would be minimized. To th mining would preclude or discourage surrounding rural lands, the energy likewise be positive. Highway 20 repair jobs in e extent that surface development of the consequences would 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 4 :_ .? BITE 11" 1985 on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of AQQreaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 o I - 198G (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and.other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in -the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 f would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 �Xffi B IF A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #421 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/27/81 4. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/10/77 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. NOTIFICATION MAPS 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP i of - 1989 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 423 Site Number 423, occupying tax lot 700 in Township 21, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 6C, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Maudlin dissenting, that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 423 comprises approximately 9 acres, and is located on the west side of Huntington Road, approximately one- half mile north the intersection with LaPine State Park Road. The site is owned by Ray Rothbard and is zoned SMR and LM. Surrounding property is zoned RR -10, FP and LM. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of 2protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 -,1s,-3) 101 1990 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site; from Ray Rothbard and from nearby residents of the site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventorv. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,000 cubic yards of good quality rock. During the ESEE hearing both Ray Rothbard corrected the staff report in indicating the amount of material on the site was 200,000 and not 20,000 origin- ally indicated. The Board's inventory findings on this site are set forth in the inventory ordinance, Deschutes County Ordinance No. 90-025. A site and reclamation plan dated April 26, 1978, was filed with DOGAMI by Darrell L. Steven- son, former owner of the subject property. This report estimates the quantity of material on the site as 150,000 cubic yards. This states that the overburden depth is approximately three feet and bases the approximate depth of the mine on the fact that the resource lies between three feet and sixteen feet in depth. The testimony of Ray Rothbard, the owner, stated that that site contained 200,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel. Removal of 3 inches of overburden and excavation of the entire nine -acre site to a depth of sixteen inches would yield 188,760 cubic yards of material. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is located between the Little Deschutes River and Huntington Road. There is a small existing gravel pit which is roughly ten feet deep and less than one acre in size. There are views from Huntington Road of the Cascade Mountains. The site backs to the floodplain of the Little Deschutes River and is slightly higher in elevation. The site has been cleared of trees. There is a small older home on the property with a storage building and shed. Directly to the south bordering this site is undeveloped land. To the east within 250 feet of Huntington Road, there are several residential properties. The site is located in a primarily residential area of rural LaPine. There are conflicting reports in the file as to the depth of the water table. One DOGAMI on-site inspection report dated June 6, 1978, indicates that there is a water table on the site between six and seven feet below the local surface and in the winter, between 10 and 12 feet from the surface. This also indicates that there is an artesian aquifer at 30 feet under the site. A subsequent report of May 12, 1989, indicates that the water table appears to be about 12 feet in depth. This on-site inspection report of Frank Schnitzer indicates that turbidity may be a problem 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 0 1901 during mining if the excavation area is not de -watered during the mining process. This points out that DOGAMI was concerned about the potential effect on wells of adjoining properties. The report indicates that the potential problem could be avoided by de -watering the excavation into a nearby excavated pond on the property. The report also indicates that the existing mining site is less than one acre and 5,000 cubic yards and therefore is not considered subject to DOGAMI regulation. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as being a sensitive wildlife area. Its proximity to the Little Deschutes River increases its value as important wildlife habitat. ODF&W has also identified the site as having medium - sensitive raptor use. Area residents testified that red-tailed hawks, sharp -shinned hawks, and bald eagles have been observed in the area. 2. Open space values. The site's zoning as LM indicates important open space values. Open space enhances the scenic views from this area toward the Cascades and habitat for deer and other wildlife. The area is in two landscape management combining zones which includes the LM zone along the Little Deschutes River and along Pengra-Huntington Road. Views of the Cascades from Huntington Road would be impacted from the site. 3. Water Quality. The shallow aquifer (6 to 12 feet) and artesian aquifer at 30 feet identified in the DOGAMI report of June 6, 1978, identifies a potential con- flict. Residential development in the surrounding area uses this shallow aquifer for domestic purposes. Further, the site is near the Little Deschutes River. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space values are impacted by the removal of over- burden, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 1992 roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Testimony from area residents raised the concern that fugitive dust emissions from the site and trucks hauling material away from the site could interfere with the views of the Cascades. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. In addition, the board finds that the nature of the aggregate at the site would require extensive blasting. The impact of all this would generally be to displace deer from such areas. 3. Water quality concerns were raised by area residents and DOGAMI. The Board finds no evidence to contradict these concerns. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife and open space values and water quality in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the FP and the RR -10 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting and processing) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 _j [a -1 - 19 9 3 2. A petition signed by seven neighborhood residents and two other letters in opposition express concern about unwanted truck noise due to increased traffic, rock crushing and related surface mining activities. 3. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. Several residents spoke to the fact that they chose to purchase homesites in this area due to the natural beauty of the area. 4. Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. This could impact all uses in the RR -10 zone, except that agricultural uses could be made on the unexcavated portions of the property. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, all possible uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses, only residential uses presently occur. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and open space do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and would impact open space values. The social consequences of such impacts would be the reduced wildlife viewing opportunities to area residents and the negative impacts on open space values from fugitive dust. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 1.011 1904 consequences on wildlife habitat and open space. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Testimony received indicates a fear that the potential for contamination of underground water is a concern which has not been addressed. This issue is raised by DOGAMI report of May 12, 1989. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that preservation of this site would likely have overall positive energy consequences due to the fact that this site is located close to development activities in the LaPine area. There are two other surface mining sites (sites 426 and 427) with 1,040,000 yards of aggregate resource within three miles of the subject site. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The Board finds that the aggre- gate source at this site is not significant considering the availability of rock in the surrounding area. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of open space and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggre- gate resource, wildlife resources and open space resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 iol 996 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site could involve increased haulage distances of aggregate materials to the development projects occurring in the LaPine area. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would therefore more likely than not have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources values at the site are relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: a. The proximity of the site to the Little Deschutes River and the fact that it is within an LM zone create conflicting resource uses which are relatively more important than the aggregate. b. The high water table in the area and the potential for contamination of underground water appears to be very high at the site due to the water table which is from between 6 and 12 feet below the surface. The value of the resource is further diminished by the fact that mining above the water table would significantly reduce the amount of material available from this small (9 acre) site since the file indicates the overburden is three feet deep. Evidence (see inventory and site characteristics above) indicates that the entire nine acres would need to be excavated to a depth of over sixteen feet to develop the site and produce the total amount of resource which the owner indicates is located on the site. Mining below the water table not only creates potential water quality problems, but also significantly limits the amount of resource available. As part of the on- site inspection report of May 12, 1989, DOGAMI requires 25 -foot setbacks from property lines and 3 -foot to 1 - foot slopes for excavated areas. This report also indicates ponds would be necessary for dewatering the are during the mining process. The 25 -foot setbacks, 3 -foot to 1 -foot slopes and dewatering ponds would significantly reduce the quantity of the resource. Based upon these facts, the relative value of water quality outweighs the resource value. C. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. d. Deer habitat in the County is continually shrinking in the face of new development. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 5 rpt A Therefore, Board finds that the conflicting resources values should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2) the conflicting natural resource values should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The Board finds that while the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of sur- rounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by area residents, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, blasting, and fugitive dust produced by the proposed surface mine. The Board finds that the impacts of truck traffic will have a 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 19 significant negative impact on the area by increasing truck traffic on Huntington Road. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals could have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to development sites in the LaPine area would compare favorably with haul distances from other sources in the County. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 13 above. In addition, the Board finds that there is a serious con- cern, unanswered by Mr. Rothbard, about what effect the mining operations might have on the high water table in the area. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development, could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments in the LaPine area would have to come from sites located further away. However, the location 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 J 'I! of two sites with 1,040,000 cubic yards within three miles of this site tends to minimize energy consequences. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) - (d) from the paragraph 12 above; b. Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commit- ment is accompanied by economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife resources, water quality of the shallow aquifer and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate, which combined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. The Board also finds that the 1,040,000 cubic yards of aggregate located within three miles of the site is sufficient to meet needs in the immediate area. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 96) EvWbT A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10`. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. i0l �ouo TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #423 COVER INFORMATION SHEET SET OF MAPS GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/10/87 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/25/86 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/19/86 LETTER FROM RAY ROTHBARD DATED 6/5/86 LETTER FROM E. FRANK SCHNITZER DATED 2/28/86 LETTER FROM EUGENE C. VENN DATED 10/30/78 LETTER FROM EUGENE C. VENN DATED 10/12/78 INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 10/8/82 EXHIBIT SCHEDULE DATED 10/5/78 CHECK LIST FOR NOTIFICATION MAPS LOOK UP SHEET NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 10/5/78 APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE DATED - 10/26/78 LETTER FROM WILLIAM D. OKRENT DATED 8/10/78 LETTER FROM ROBERT F. FREE 8/8/78 LETTER FROM EUGENE C. VENN DATED 6/15/78 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 6/13/78 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/6/78 APPLICATION FOR OPERATING PERMIT DATED 4/20/78 1 -$. 1,� 4 I, 4 22. EXHIBIT A - STAFF REPORT 23. LETTER FROM PHILIP E. PASCHKE TO WILLIAM D. OKRENT 24. MEMO FROM WILLIAM G. MONROE 25. PROOF OF LABOR DATED 12/12/77 26. EXHIBIT B - LETTER TO WILLIAM D. OKRENT 27. EXHIBIT C - LETTER TO D.L. STEVENSON 28. EXHIBIT D - REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/6/78 29. EXHIBIT E - SURFACE MINING PURPOSE & DEFINITIONS 30. EXHIBIT F - LETTER TO DAYL L. STEVENSON 31. FASANO REQUIREMENTS & RATIONALE 32. ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 33. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES 34. STAFF NOTES 35. LETTER TO CHUJICIKMCGRAW FROM R. ROTHBARD DATED 7/18/88 36. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/8/88 37. LETTER FROM SHERRI CHRISTOFFERSON DATED 1/27/89 38. BLM RECEIPT OF MINING CLAIM DATED 3/10/89 39. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 40. NOTIFICATION MAPS 41. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 42. LETTER FROM COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 43. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 44. LETTER WEBSTER 8/8/89 45. LETTER VIRGIL MOORE 8/16/89 46. LETTER HEINZ 8/4/89 47. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/20/89 48. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 5/12/89 5O bmrd 06comm'issioness heac%n� m�n�,-S 51. i �, 06 cdmrri4lst0rteXs decls1001 ry:t res 561. (e -Of lom, (may N)+hbar -z3-F5� 5,5 . -Doc r t e �^ did ?-3o-2f/ 01 till - 000 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 426/427 Site Numbers 426 and 427, occupying tax lots 702 and 701 respectively, in Township 21 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 18, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a prelimi- nary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 426/427 comprises approximately 18 acres and is located one-half mile east of Highway 97 between LaPine and Sunriver, just north of the Paulina Lake Road intersection with Highway 97. The site is owned by LaPine Redi-Mix (426) and Bill Bagley (427) and is currently zoned SM (426) and SMR (427). Adjacent private land is zoned SMR. Except for the SMR -zoned land to the north, the surrounding land is in public ownership. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife and Lynn Bettleyouen, operator of the sites. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that these sites have 1,040,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. This site consists of two operating sand and gravel pits located on level terrain just one-half to the east of Highway 97. It is surrounded entirely by Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, except for an SMR -zoned parcel to the north. Tax lot 703 of the SMR -zoned property is occupied by a log home manufactur- ing operation; tax lot 700 is cleared and vacant. Site 427 is currently operating illegally and would need a zone change and site plan to operate legally. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route. The site is immediately adjacent to sites identified on the comprehensive plan as being deer migration corridors. 2. Scenic values. The site's LM zoning indicates a concern for protection of the scenery along the Highway 97 corridor. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 `'_ 0;1 - 0005 the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The concern here is with impacting views from Highway 97. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the SM and SMR zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The log home manufacturing operation is a nonconforming use in the SMR zone. There are no other conflicting uses at the site from the standpoint of Deschutes County zoning, given that Deschutes County has no power to regulate uses on the surrounding federal land. Given that tax lots 700 and 703 have not been identified as mineral sites on the County's inventory, the current SMR zoning for those sites will likely revert to the surrounding F-2 zoning. It is therefore appropriate to consider what conflicts may arise on those lots under F-2 zoning. Such conflicts would be minimal or non-existent since there is only one tax lot available for further development, the range of uses in the F-2 zone is limited (in this case, uses would be even more narrow given that there is no timber on the site) and the existing adjoining use is a manufacturing use. Therefore, the Board finds that land use conflicts in this case would be minimal. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 0006 permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Site 427 is operating illegally and would obviously need a zone change to be able to continue. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Continued surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and enlarge a visual disturbance in the landscape. The social conse- quences would be felt primarily by those travelling along Highway 97 to the extent the site is visible from the road. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that zoning for continued surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mor- tality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 J ija U0U 7 part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to Highway 97 to the west and that the site would be conven- iently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing maintenance or construction in the area. The Board finds that there are no other significant sources of aggregate in the southern part of the County. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in such an area of level terrain could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 wl 0003 amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man although conflicts can be mitigated in cases such as this where views of the site are filtered by trees. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the economy of Deschutes County. (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County; at 1.0 million cubic yards, this site is among the largest aggregate sites on the inventory. (c) This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway 97 construction jobs and there are few other aggregate sites in the area. (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (e) Preserving scenic views along Highway 97 is important in that Highway 97 is a heavily travelled highway through the County. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 02 -A 0010 commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given the minimal amount of private land sur- rounding the site and that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area,.market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would not have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area, since the existing use is a manufacturing one other possible uses are limited. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 r Ki A.a Z 0011 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12- 18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggre- gate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. Protection of conflicting land uses, if any, would have negative economic consequences, given the large amount of aggregate at the site and the minimal amount of private development possible nearby. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, such positive consequences would be of little benefit in a site such as this that has few conflicts. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resour- ces for upkeep and improvement of Highway 97 in the northern part of the County would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 J. t k l) UU12 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development the mineral resource is more important than any conflicting uses and subject to the limitations place on the site due to Goal 5 conflicts, should be fully protected. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting Goal 5 uses, the site will be zoned for mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife conditions as set forth in their august 10, 1989, letter identifying this site for deer winter range and special wildlife treatment. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter processing limitations will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter processing limitations will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 1. 0013 Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 IN 001 4 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 C I B I `_C, TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #426 1. INVENTORY SHEETS 2. MAP 3. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 4/7/88 4. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 3/10/87 5. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/18/86 6. PAGE 2 OF SURFACE MINE PROPERTY OWNER LETTER DATED 6/9/86 7. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/25/85 8. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/19/85 9. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/13/84 10. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/16/83 11. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/16/83 12. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/16/82 13. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/3/82 14. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/1/81 15. LETTER FROM T. MATTHEWS ON QUALITY & QUANITY 6/27/88 16. NOTIFICATION MAP 17. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT TC 702 18. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT TC 700 19. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMENDATION 20. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 21. REPORT ON-SITE INSPECTION 5/12/89 Z3 iso Comm►inners de��5ion m�n��,tz s 2� • mud Cd mrrik6L_.'r0Wrs hlJWCx en nuLkL.-S U 01 EX N(B � i� TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #427 +wl ;_11. - 0 01 G 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. LETTER TO BILL BAGLEY DATED 5/15/86 4. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/14/83 5. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/14/82 6. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 6/23/82 7. REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/28/88 8. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 9. NOTIFICATION MAPS 10. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 11. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 5/12/89 13. Lam m b DF+LA-) al - lo -sl iy . t�oac� p Cprn �M t5sto c12.1`5 "8'n (got rYi��nw' .� 15. .�cd � l.Orr,rYi l �S(d R� de_ct sup n �n-i,nu.�Li lard ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 432 Site Number 432, occupying a portion of tax lot 1500 in Township 22 South, Range 11 E.W.M., came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing in August, 1989. On October 27, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 432 comprises approximately 5.85 acres and is located on the southwest flank of Finley Butte, east of LaPine. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Department and is zoned F-2. Adjacent land is zoned F-2. The site is entirely surrounded for Forest Service Land. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 � () -, 0015 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 160,000 cubic yards of cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This is a small site located on the flanks of Finley Butte in southeast LaPine. Access to the site is off Forest Service Road #2210. This site is located along the south flanks of Finley Butte. The butte slopes off steeply to the south and west in the area of mining. The cinder pit is located along the lower half of the butte. No special views were noted from the bottom of the site. Drainage in the area appears adequate. The site is within the Deschutes National Forest. No wildlife or improvements were noted. There are electrical lines running across the top of the butte. Maps indicate that there is a rail line to the north side of the butte, however no railroad tracks were noted. The site is within the national forest. Within one-half mile of the site is all natural forest land. The site is only visible from the roads which are directly adjacent to the butte. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 ._JC 0010 and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-2 at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. As the site is surrounded entirely by Forest Service land over which the County has zoning control, no further conflicts analysis is needed for land use purposes. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 _ . _t L J �_) - 0020 Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 126 and Highway 20, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway main- tenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 I allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 a i:l 0 0 2 factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highways 97. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 4 mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. [Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event.] The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 „. d►:1� UU25 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 _.i �. 10? - 002U e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 4 Aa' I ­.rt J.02 -- 001-' waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #432 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT 4. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/28/86 5. LETTER FROM E. FRANK SCHNITZER DATED 5/15/85 6. LETTER FROM E. FRANK SCHNITZER DATED 5/15/85 7. APPRAISERS INFO & STAFF REPORT 8. INFO SHEET & LOCATION MAP - HEARING NOTICE c1, �kx.3C� G CGrnrrl�iOn24� �led�ifX� m,:�� b<_ f'l 0029 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 433 Site Number 433, occupying tax lot 101, in Township 21 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 30, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 433 comprises approximately 157 acres on the side of a pumice cone in Newberry Crater between East and Paulina Lakes. The site is owned by LaPine Pumice Co. and is currently zoned OS&C. The site is entirely surrounded by Deschutes National Forest Land, which is zoned OS&C and LM. This site was identified as containing lump pumice in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser hired by the County to view the site and describe it and its surroundings was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 A JO Testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and from a representative of LaPine Pumice. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 10 million cubic yards of lump pumice. This resource is located in a patented mining claim on the side of a pumice cone inside Newberry Crater. Testimony at the ESEE hearings also indicates that the amount of pumice at the site might be substantially more than the amount on the inventory, as the owner wishes to mine half of the entire cone. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 433 is located between East Lake and Paulina Lake in the Newberry Crater area. The site itself is in and along the east flanks of the Central Cone. The east side of the cone slopes down steeply into East Lake. The area is forested with lodgepole pine. The site currently supports an ongoing lump pumice mining operation of about 3 to 5 acres. The site is located between two lakes in the middle of a volcanic caldera. The area supports a variety of recrea- tional uses, including camping, picnicking, fishing, hiking, sightseeing, and in the winter snowmobiling and cross- country skiing. The caldera is one of the most heavily visited recreational resources in the county. Nearby to the site are two developed resorts and a number of Forest Service campgrounds. Other than the resorts, campgrounds and access roads, the caldera is undeveloped. The owner proposes to mine this site for lump pumice which is used for stonewashed jeans and barbecue grill rocks, among other uses. The site is one of two sites in the nation with such a resource. The owner's propose to mine one-half of the cinder cone, leaving a flat area for later use as a resort. The material would be trucked to Bend for processing and at the height of operations could involve as much traffic as one truck per hour. Up until 1980, the site was mined as an unpatented mining claim. The claim was patented by the Forest Service in 1980. The level of mining activity has been variable over the years. The most that has ever been taken out is two carloads. Since 1986, only a few truckloads per year have been removed. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 a., i0 ;_A 0 0 J I In 1985, the County adopted, by Ordinance No. 85-001, a geothermal element to its comprehensive plan. After analyz- ing the ESEE consequences, the County decided to protect the conflicting open space, scenic and recreational resources and other natural values of the Newberry Crater area, to the exclusion of geothermal uses. This decision was upheld in the Oregon Court of Appeals after it was challenged by LaPine Pumice. Ordinance No. 85-001 and the findings supporting that ordinance are incorporated herein by refer- ence. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified area site as supporting mule deer, elk and bear during the summer. In addition, ODFW testi- fied that the are has a nesting pair of bald eagle in the summer across East Lake. The site is included within a wildlife refuge established many years ago between ODFW and the Forest Service. East Lake and Paulina Lake support excellent trout fisheries. 2. Open space and scenic values. The zoning for OS&C indicates that this site has outstanding scenic qualit- ies. The comprehensive plan has inventoried this site as a National Natural Landmark, the only such designa- tion to appear in the County's inventory of areas of special inventory. In addition, the site is zoned LM to protect the scenic views from the Paulina Lake scenic highway corridor. The scenic qualities and natural attributes of the area attracts heavy recreational use. According to the Geothermal Element of the Comprehensive Plan, recrea- tional user days amounted to 300,000 persons in the early 1980s. As stated above, those user days are spread over a variety of recreational uses. The Newberry Caldera is one of the County's most used recreational areas. 3. Energy. The Newberry Crater area has been identified as having significant geothermal energy potential. Conflicts (1) Wildlife. The noise, dust and alteration of the topo- graphy of the site all would have an adverse effect on 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 �w� L02 UQ32 deer and elk using the area during the summer. Such impacts would likely scare them away. The same could be true of the nesting bald eagles in the area. Fish resources could be affected if surface runoff were to enter the lake. Siltation of spawning habitat could occur. Also, runoff could carry contaminants from machinery, such as oil into the Lakes. (2) Scenic, recreational and open space. Open space, scenic and recreational values would be adversely affected by the removal of vegetation, additional excavation of the surface, the presence of machinery at the site, and the noise and fugitive dust associated with mining activities. (3) Energy. There would be no conflict with production of geothermal energy to the extent that the two uses do not need to occupy the same space. Because of a previous evaluation of this property under the County's Geothermal Goal 5 element, geothermal use has been precluded as a use at the site. Therefore, this resource is not an option for this site. The Board finds that wildlife habitat conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife habitat, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, increased human presence and the possible pollution of surface waters of the adjoining lake, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact wildlife and their habitat. Land Use Conflicts. The site and the surrounding area is zoned OS&C. The purpose of such zoning is to protect designated areas of scenic and natural resources, to restrict development from areas with fragile unusual, or unique qualities, to protect and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources, and to plan development so as to conserve open space. Accordingly, allowed and conditional uses in the zone are limited to uses that would support recreation and open space type uses, such as campgrounds, parks, museums, wildlife reserves. The only resource -type use is farming. Surface mining would be incompatible with such uses due to the noise, dust, and visual alterations of the topography. Because of the Board of Commissioner's disposition of this matter under Goal 5 conflicts, and because of the fact that the surrounding federal lands are not subject to state 4 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 433 .t ar. Jim ~' 00 3 3 zoning control, land use conflicts will not be considered further. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site. However, no DOGAMI or County approvals have been obtained. The site operates as a nonconforming use in the OS&C zone. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the mineral in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that wildlife habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. Such consequences could be severe, given the large number of recreational user days Newberry Crater attracts each summer. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given the substantial numbers of visitors to the site, the social consequences would be substantial. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and the eagle population of the site. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortal- ity rate for the area's wildlife. The noise associated with the mining could well cause the bald eagles to abandon their nest. In addition, the excavation of the site would destroy the symmetry of the cone and leave a vertical flat face facing East Lake. The alteration of the cone would also be visible from the Lake to viewers at the top of Paulina Peak. This would detract from the visual attractiveness of an otherwise outstanding natural feature. In addition, the noise and dust associated with mining the cone would mar the recrea- tional experiences of visitors to the area. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 - 00 j;j _P -, 0034 In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. In this case, the mining would remove a large portion of the cone. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Nothing in the ESEE hearing indicates that lump pumice is an essential material; therefore, unless energy would be expended in processing a substitute, the energy consequences would be negative. The fact the site has been operated at only a minimal level over the last several years supports the Board's conclusion that the material is not an essential one. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the scenic and wild- life resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The eagle population would likely also be scared away by mining activity. The excavation of the cone would drastically affect the aesthetics of the cone. The Board finds that lump pumice resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources from being realized in the local economy. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the Goal 5 resources at the site would not have negative effects on the general welfare of the County. The resource is not an essential one to the functioning of society. Because this is only one site, the effects on employment in the County would not be severe if this site were not zoned for mining. The owners would still be able to operate at a level consistent with their previous levels. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the scenic, recreational and wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and destruction of topography and vegetation associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection those values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 ,► 0 0 J 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site would likely be positive. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the consequences, the Board finds that the conflicting Goal 5 resources should be fully protected at the expense of the pumice resource. The County bases this decision on the following: (a) Unlike aggregate there is no great demand for lump pumice in the County. Although there appears to be a national market for such minerals, the Board finds that the uses for such minerals, stonewashed jeans and barbecue grill rocks, do not represent important societal needs. This is supported by the fact that the site has never had more than two train carloads removed in any year. (b) The site represents a unique scenic and recreational natural feature in the County. This has been recog- nized by the County in its comprehensive plan listing of the feature as a national natural landmark. Furthermore, the County has, in a previous Goal 5 pro- cess, decided to preserve the open space, scenic and recreational values of the site. (c) Recreation and tourism are increasingly important components of the County economy. This is one of the most visited recreational sites in the County. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. This decision is consistent with the decision made by the County in adopting Ordinance No. 85-001, by which it amended its comprehensive plan to add the geothermal resource element and by which the County determined that the natural values of the site would be protected. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and that the present OS&C zoning will be retained. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 o4 - 0030 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #433 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. LETTER TO GLEN YOST, JR. DATED 2/4/86 3. EAST LAKE MINING INVESTIGATION REPORT DRAFT 4. LETTER FROM HAROLD A. BERENDS DATED 8/8/80 5. MINERAL PATENT LEGAL DOCUMENT DATED 7/3/80 6. PAGE 15 & 23 OF ORDINANCE PL -15 7. PAGE 155 & 156 OF ORDINANCE PL -15 8. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 9. EAST LAKE MINE CLAIM GAINS NOD ON APPEAL - NEWS ARTICLE 10. FOREST SERVICE INTERESTED IN NEWBERRY CRATER SITE - NEWS ARTICLE 11. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES 12. PICTURES 13. LETTER TO BOCC FROM BOB DEACON DATED 10/18/88 14. LETTER TO C. MCGRAW FROM JIM MILLER DATED 10/25/88 15. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 16. NOTIFICATION MAP 17. MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 18. MEMO FROM NORM BEHRENS 19. EXCERPTS FROM 4TH EDITION OF INDUSTRIAL MINERALS & ROCKS 20. LETTER FROM J. MILLER TO CHUCK MCGRAW 10/25/88 21. LETTER FROM R. DEACON TO CHUCK MCGRAW 10/18/88 {{ . a t„s•t r�' / ( sl elti ..<<<U'_: 1t1 or L02 - 0037 ESEE Findings and Decision Site Nos. 441-443 Site Number 441-443, occupying portions of tax lot 300 in Township 15, Range 9E, Sections 3 and 4, and tax lot 600 in Township 15, Range 9E, Section 17 came before the Board of Com- missioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1980. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site 441-443 comprise approximately 1100 acres and is located near the McKenzie Highway west of Sisters on an inholding in the Deschutes National Forest. The site is owned by Willamette Industries and is zoned F2. Adjacent land is zoned F-2, and much of it is owned by the United States Government as part of the Deschutes National Forest. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife identifying the site as a big game winter range site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 17,000,000 cubic yards of aggregate material of good quality, and 150,000 cubic yard of aggregate material of fair quality. 2. Site Characteristics. This site runs along Trout Creek, which flows northeasterly into Squaw Creek. Trout Creek bisects the identified aggregate resource area. The site is bounded equally by Forest Service land and private land and is accessed by Forest Service Roads. The adjoining private land is held in large parcels. The file does not indicate whether or not uses have been established on the adjoining parcels of private land. Neither does the file indicate whether the resource has been mined previously. Due to the lack of any DOGAMI permits in the file, it is assumed that these sites have not been mined previously. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Resource Conflicts Resources 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being within a deer use range with a high frequency of use. 2. Fish. The Deschutes County comprehensive plan iden- tifies Trout Creek as being an important riparian zone. In addition, the Goal 5 inventory for the County notes .that the creek contains a population of rainbow trout. 3. Open space and scenic. The site's zoning for F-2, with a minimum lot size of 40 acres, indicates high open space values. In addition, the LM zoning designation that touches a portion of site 441 indicates a concern for scenic values along the McKenzie Highway. Any conflicts due to the LM zoning should be minimal given that the site is at the extreme edge of the LM zone. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining to be as follows: 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facili- ties, and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site (especially in sites such as this in riparian area). The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. (3) Impacts on fish resources could include increased turbidity and siltation resulting in loss of food sources and loss of spawning habitat (where excavation takes place in the stream or surface runoff from sites near the stream enters the stream), increased water temperatures (where riparian habitat is removed) and general loss of habitat and cover due to destruction of the stream bed and loss of streamside vegetation. The Board finds that open space, fish and wildlife resources, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topograph- ical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and streambed, and loss of vegeta- tion and riparian habitat associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-2 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 zone would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensitive uses in the zone. The 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 1 'AC) U 0040 Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except forest uses, utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. Farm uses could be impacted if livestock were near the site. Stables would qualify as a noise sensitive use. (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses, parks uses, and destination resorts; and (4) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. To the extent existing trees at the site are harvested prior to mining, forest uses would not be conflicting. It is not possible to predict whether any such uses are likely to occur. However, due to the large lot sizes, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that no one appears to live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those who might make recreational use of the Deschutes National Forest nearby, and to the extent visible from those travelling Highway 242 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and fish habitat and open space values. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. The impact on scenic views from the McKenzie Highway should be minimal, given the closest portion of the site is at the outside edge of the LM zone. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site could cause increased energy consumption in that the site is located further from market areas than other sites. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and fish habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remai- ning unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by preclud- ing mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 0042 aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. This site constitutes 23% of that total. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that given the amount of aggregate present at this particular site and the level of conflicts at all sites, the site is essential to meeting the County's aggre- gate needs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of fail- ure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not read- ily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is ini.micable to the protection of scenic views fish and deer habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 U2 - 0043 and aggregate resource, fish and wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Fish and wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site would likely save energy, to the extent that sufficient amounts of aggregate located closer to markets were preserv- ed. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site could have positive energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource of this site are both important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and this site represent the largest known deposit in the County. In addition, as a stream deposit, the aggregate is for the most part of good quality. Fish and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records Of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The undeveloped nature of the site and adjoin- ing lands and their apparent holding for resource purposes would likely insulate this site from any market changes. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 0?_ 0044 enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. This is not likely to happen here, given the large lot sizes. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve every- day transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 • a [;I'' UU45 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regula- tions. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While in most cases, the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, this site represents 23% of the aggregate resource in the County. Because virtually all sites have some degree of conflict with land uses or resources, the Board finds that this site is essential to meeting its goal. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be -prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would pre- clude or curtail mining at this site probably would have no negative effects on energy consumption because of the dis- tance of the site from major market areas, unless insuffi- cient aggregate sources are protected at other sites, neces- sitating hauling aggregate materials in from outside the area. On the other hand, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use over that now being used at the site from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 1 0 a -., V 0 `^1 W 22. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development, if any, both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are impor- tant relative to one another. The aggregate has importance for the reasons set forth above. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010(3) it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of existing conflicting land uses and will limit future residential and other development on and adjacent to the site in favor of use of the mineral resource. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening, especially with regard to visibility from Highway 242; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Wildlife restrictions as set forth in the August 10, 1989, ODFW letter in the file. (e) No mining activity shall occur within 100 feet of Trout Creek. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 J - 004-1 the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter clo- sure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when construction projects are not typi- cally underway. The Board finds that the 100 -foot setback from Trout Creek will protect sensitive riparian areas and fish habitat. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopt- ed as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batch- ing, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or condi- tional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricul- tural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protec- ted against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggre- gate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond or inside an adjacent County. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 ing protest of any surface mining activities, and if a crusher is allowed for the site, such conflicting uses must demonstrate that they will not cause a mining operation to violate siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggre- gate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #441 io - 0049 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET SUBMITTED BY WILLAMETTE IND. 2. MAP 3. INVENTORY SHEET 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. SAME AS ABOVE 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP -EM41BIT- A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #442 t�,2 - 0050 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET SUBMITTED BY WILLAMETTE IND. 2. MAP 3. INVENTORY SHEET 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 7. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #443 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. WILLAMETTE IND. INFORMATION SHEET 4. WILLAMETTE IND. INFORMATION/MAP SHEET. 5. NOTIFICATION MAPS 6. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP a . ab mkoa-hs 10 • `r�r,�( c,� �,pmm,y�orx�-rs 4eus�on tri�n�-S ��. I(l'a 0052 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 453 Site Number 453, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies those preliminary decisions. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Maudlin dissenting, that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 543, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 16 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 9 and tax lot 301 in Township 16, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 10 comprises approximately 340 acres and is located on the west bank of the Deschutes River off Whiterock Market Road. The site is owned by Robert Fullhart and is cur- rently zoned EFU-20 FP and LM. Adjacent zoning is EFU-20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report from an appraiser hired by the County to describe the site and its surroundings was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 i '- 9 During the ESEE hearings on these sites, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Parks Division of the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Coalition for the Deschutes, a number of neighbors opposed to mining at the site and a number of persons testifying by joint letter in favor of mining at the site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that this site has 1.5 million cubic yards of good quality sand and gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 453 consists of two tax lots, 301 and 600 located on the west bank of the Deschutes River midway off of Whiterock Loop. The site starts roughly 5/8 miles east of Whiterock Loop and extends east to the river. A majority of the site is a level field above the Deschutes River. Near the river, on tax lot 301, the site drops steeply to the river. The western 3/4 of the site is currently being farmed. There is a rural farm residential property on tax lot 301 overlooking the river. The property is located in a rural residential farm area north of Tumalo. Most of the properties surrounding the site are larger acreages that are vacant to the north and farmed to the south and west. To the east of the site is the river and more farm type properties on large acreages. There are some residential acreage properties to the south of the property within half a mile. The site is easily visible from surrounding properties. The residential acreage area south of the site is at a slightly higher elevation than the subject. No mining has occurred previously at this site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, the resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan lists the Deschutes River as having 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 ' A "40 101-P - 0054 Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout. Area residents spoke to excellent fishing for trout in the area. In addition, the Board finds based upon the testimony of a neighbor to the site that there are raptors, such as bald eagles, gold eagles, red-tailed hawks, otters, osprey, canadian geese, and other wildlife. The archeological resources are listed below. 2. Open space and scenic values. The County Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Zoning ordinance includes areas along the Deschutes River in the LM zone, which would protect scenic values 200 feet back from the river. This would apply primarily to the riparian areas bordering the river. 3. Riparian habitat. The resource element of the County Comprehensive Plan identifies the area along the banks of the Deschutes River as being a sensitive riparian area. Riparian habitat has value for wildlife that use it for a forage and water source. Wildlife such as deer from adjacent areas may come to the area during the nighttime hours for water. In addition, riparian areas are important habitat for fish. 4. Scenic waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River is in the State Scenic Waterway program. Such designation includes a one-quarter mile corridor on each side of the river upstream and downstream from the dam. The Board finds that virtually all of tax lot 301 and half of tax lot 600 are within the scenic waterway. State scenic waterway designation is based on a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, historic, archeological, recreational and outdoor values. It appears from information in the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River Study (River Study) and testimony at the ESEE hearing that the outstanding attributes of the River in this segment would be fish and wildlife, recreational, scenic, and historic. Testimony during the ESEE hearing attested to the fact that the area is used for fishing and wildlife viewing and scenic viewing. In addition, testimony established that there are significant archaeological resources at and around the site, as further set forth below. The river runs through a steep -walled canyon at this point with vegetated banks below. Although there are homes sited above the canyon, the canyon itself is in a natural state. Neighbors testified at the ESEE hear- ings that this segment of the Deschutes is one of the 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 most unspoiled sites on the Deschutes. Above the canyon, the site has stunning views of the Cascades. There is abundant wildlife visible to visitors of the site. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz Study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportion of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 5. Historic and cultural resources. The River Study identified this particular site as having cultural sites. In the ESEE hearings, neighbors of the site testified that the cliffs on surrounding properties in the canyon have ancient petrogliphs and that artifacts, such as arrowheads have been found at or near the property. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and the testimony at the ESEE hearings, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space, scenic, and recreational values would be adversely affected by the removal of additional vegeta- tion and excavation of the surface, the presence of machinery at the site, and the noise and fugitive dust associated with mining activities. (2) The noise associated with surface mining would adverse- ly impact on the wildlife use of the area. Any use of the area by deer would be impacted by the noise, dust, and truck traffic, as set forth in the staff report. Other wildlife, such as raptors would be adversely affected by the noise associated with mining. The end result would be to displace such wildlife at times when the mine was operating. Besides impacting the wildlife directly, such impacts would have an indirect effect on the public's enjoyment of open space, scenic, and recreational values, due to the absence of wildlife viewing opportunities. Even if mining were to be restricted to the plateau above the canyon the prevail- ing westerly winds would bring the adverse impacts of noise and dust into the canyon. (3) Depending on how close mining took place to the river, mining operations could adversely affect wetland, riparian habitat and fish resources through destruction of riparian vegetation, debris coming to rest in 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 --005G riparian zones and possible uncontrolled surface drainage, leading to increased sedimentation in the stream, further affecting fish spawning habitat and fish food sources. (4) It appears that cultural sites identified in the River Study could be impacted, if not destroyed, if surface mining were to take place on the benches adjacent to the river. In addition, testimony during the ESEE spoke of arrowheads being found on the farmland above the canyon rim. Such resources could be adversely impacted by mining. The Board finds that fish and wildlife, riparian habitat and scenic values along the River conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat and riparian areas and scenic resour- ces, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust, increased human pre- sence, and water quality impacts as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact wildlife and their habitat. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-20 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The County comprehensive plan shows that, although an allowed uses, forestry uses would not occur due to the soils at the site. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, and processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensi- tive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. The surrounding area is developed with homes overlooking the Deschutes River to the north and east. 2. The impact of dust on subdivision residents neighboring the surface mine. Neighbors across the river testified that the prevailing winds would carry dust over to 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 their properties. Testimony was received from one neighboring resident who suffers asthma expressing concern over dust. He testified that even without surface mining in the area, there are days when he must remain indoors due to dust and smoke. The Board finds that dust from surface mining operations would be a health hazard. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. The Board finds that the site would be in view of several exist- ing homes in the area. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, most of the uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses, residential and park -type uses are the primary existing conflicting uses. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. Recreation is taking increasing importance in the Deschutes County economy; therefore, the indirect economic effects of surface mining could increase over time. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on scenic, wildlife, open space and recreational values as set forth above. These impacts would affect primarily homeowners in the area. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on the fish and wildlife, aesthetic and his - 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 c► 0053 torical resources at and surrounding the site. Surface mining activities would increase noise and traffic and reduce the available cover and forage at the site. In addition, noise could cause other wildlife such as raptors to avoid the site. Wildlife would be forced to leave the area adding more competition in other habitat areas. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. The present unspoiled nature of the Canyon would be marred, even if no mining were allowed inside the canyon due to the intrusions of noise and dust into the canyon and the absence of wildlife. Such intrusions are likely even if mining were to be kept out of the canyon, due to the prevailing westerly winds. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Because the site is within the 10-15 mile haul distance that is economical to haul aggregate materials, the energy consequences of failure to zone this site could be negative. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of riparian and fish and wildlife resources and public open space and scenic values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to urban markets would likely involve increased haulage distances to nearby highway maintenance jobs. From this standpoint, the Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site could have negative energy consequences. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 i (. 0 0 b o 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the consequences, the Board finds that the scenic, recreational, cultural, riparian and fish and wildlife resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. The facts supporting the Board's decision include the following: (a) Although this site is a relatively large one at 704,000 cubic yards, its preservation is not necessary, con- sidering decisions made at other sites. By those decisions, the County has preserved a total of 45,197,- 000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. (b) The County has preserved at least 570,000 cubic yards at site 368 a couple of miles away. That site is closer to market areas than is this one. (c) The area is one of the few largely unspoiled areas along the Deschutes River left and is highly valued by residents for its wildlife, scenic, recreational and cultural resources. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 (JI -P 0061 surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by neighborhood residents, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, fugitive dust and scars to the landscape produced by the proposed surface mine. Many of the area residents stated that their primary objective in moving out to this area was for the solitude afforded by the area. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall mixed energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. On the other hand, access to the site is marginal due to poor roads. This could make the site less attractive to use and could also require the upgrading of the access roads which would consume energy. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 11 above. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development, could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 xi - overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments on the southeast side of Bend would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Agareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. The area has a number of existing homes. These homes have a high degree of natural amenities, such as scenic views, solitude, and wildlife viewing opportunities that makes this a special rural residential location. Many of the residents testified that it was the solitu- de of the area and its unspoiled nature that lead them to choose this area to reside in. Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting Goal 5 resources and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 45,197,000 cubic yards of aggregate material (including crushable rock), which combined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 • biT-A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 102 0062 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #453 l k VENTORY SHEET JA,TTER FROM SUN COUNTY ON QUALITY & QUANTITY MAP Llffl"TER FROM PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES APP -R: AISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NO'T'IFICATION MAPS MYLAR LETTER FROM PATRICIA ARRAS 8/15/89 1XITTER FROM RICHARD GAMMON 8/10/89 LEITER FROM GEORGE HAYDEN 8/11/89 LETTER FROM CAROL VETTERICK 8/14/89 LETTER FROM JO JENKINS & STEVE WITTER 8/14/89 LETTER FROM WILLIAM ARRAS 8/14/89 PETITION DATED 8/15/89 PETITION DATED 8/15/89 PETITION DATED 8/15/89 `f&,`ITER FROM COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 PLANN'-*NG COMMISSION MINUTES PETITION LETTER FROM SUZANNE MCFARLAND 8/7/89 LETTER FROM ANGELA BILDSOE-MCFARLAND 8/7/89 LETTER FROM SCOTT MCFARLAND 8/7/89 1 10? - 0063 23. LETTER FROM PATRICIA ARRAS 8/8/89 24. LETTER FROM DAVID SMITH 8/9/89 25. LETTER FROM STEVE TURNER 8/13/89 26. LETTER FROM CHRISTINE FOURNILL-RANDALL 8/15/89 27. LETTER FROM CHARLES ARNOLD 8/15/89 28. LETTER FROM RON & KAREN LEEP 8/14/89 29. LETTER FROM KENNETH ULLMAN 8/15/89 30. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 31. LETTER FROM DEBBIE HUGGENDICK 8/15/89 32. LETTER FROM FULLHARD 8/16/89 33. LETTER FROM AL TOMPKINS 8/16/89 34. LETTER FROM DAVID SMITH 9/7/89 �5. IeAer - mcn C)F-.kw q -to -sl lao�:d C Gamry ��sioner� c�c��on, o-i,nu (z U 3-). Board c)6 Comm.�s,vner� decas�on rri►��,-tis 2 is - 0064 ESEE Findings and Decision Sites No. 459 and 469 Site Numbers 459 and 469, occupying tax lots 5200 and 100, respectively, in Township 14, Range 11, Section 31, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of cinder sites, should be classified under the County's comprehen- sive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site numbers 459 and 469 together comprise approximately 120 acres. They are adjacent to one another and are located just east of Sisters View Drive, northeast of Sisters. Site 469 is just to the north of and adjacent to site 459. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is currently zoned F-3 and SMR, respec- tively. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10 and EFU-40. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 ';_y. i o 2 - 0065 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife to the effect that the site has impor- tant winter range value. Letters were received from neighbors concerned about noise, dust, traffic and impacts on livestock. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the inventory at these sites is: 459 - 50,000 cubic yard of good quality cinders; and 469 - 2 million cubic yards of fair quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. These two sites are located just east Of Sisters View Drive. Sisters View Drive is located at the east end of Squaw Back Estates subdivision, off of Camp Polk Road. Road access is off of Goodrich Loop Road and does not pass through any residential area. The sites are a topographic high for the local area. They are located on top of a butte which is surrounded primarily by lower farm fields. The sites appear to be naturally vegetated with dense juniper trees and sage brush. No wildlife, improvements or utilities were noted on the sites. To the east of the sites are a couple of small farms which are within a half mile of the sites. To the north and west of the sites are rural, residential acreage properties. There are poor to average quality homes directly to the west of the sites. The subdivision has poorly maintained, cinder roads. The subdivision is developed with a great diversity of homes, from a teepee to average quality frame houses. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as a deer winter range with high frequency of use. 2. Open Space and Scenic Values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The F-3 and EFU-40 zoning at and near the site indi- cates the presence of important open space values. Open space is needed to enhance the wildlife forage and cover available to wildlife. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 "", k).."> 0ja - 0000 Conflicts. Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has indicated that noise at this site would have a medium impact. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are not water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conver- sely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife and open space in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land use conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-3, SMR, EFU-40 and RR -10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 Conflicts That Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the sur- rounding zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SMR zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture or forestry may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated por- tions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in surrounding zones. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensitive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except geothermal uses, utility uses, landfill uses, personal use landing strips and off-road vehicle tracks, other mining uses and forest products processing uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly in adjacent developed residential areas. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts, the conflicting uses in the zone are as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are a couple of farms to the east within close proximity to the site and a partially developed subdivision to the west. Nearby residents have written noting noise, dust and traffic conflicts. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflict with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and open space values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the County. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and visually disturb the landscape. These consequence would be felt primarily by those living in the area. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that surface mining activities would have adverse environmental conse- quences on wildlife habitat and open space and scenic values. Surface mining activities would reduce the avail- able cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued or increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term, surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. is some degree of need in the County for cinders and 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 use. There failure i.0 U069 to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that the cinders would be used by the County primarily for sanding icy highways, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 126 and Highway 20, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any on-going highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds that there are no other County sites nearby and that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The open spaces values could only be fully protected by precluding mining. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that states that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads, except for sanding. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valu- able sand and gravel resource. One economic consequence of failing to zone this site for surface mining would be increased costs to the County in hauling cinders to roads in this part of the County for spreading on icy roads. 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social conse- quences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect aggregate 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 00Y0 sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and open space resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Likewise, open space is in limited supply. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for sanding road maintenance materials for 20 to 30 years; b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and this site is a relatively large cinder source. C. This site is well located to provide cinders for sanding of Highways 20 and 126, thus reducing hauling costs. There are no other County cinder sites nearby. d. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. e. Preservation of open space is important to maintaining deer populations. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 .. _i ,y�4 L02 0011 Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation, the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 i T2 - 00'12 preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 12 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most of the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise -sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise - sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinders in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for -that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every cinder site over which the County has land use juris- diction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amount of cinders available in the County. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 +ate 0(x(3 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development, both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b) and (c) from paragraph 12 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who live in and patronize those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16- 010, it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the cinder resource at this site. The displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the nor- thern 80 acres of the two sites will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 r +1 0 0. 4 b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to five acres at one time, with on-going incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be operated only on site 459, which will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements. To protect deer populations, no blasting and operation of rock crushing equipment shall be allowed from December 1 through April 30. Trucks may be loaded and unloaded during that period; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The southern 40 acres of site 469 will not be zoned, in deference to conflicting values and uses. Conflictina Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only five acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the processing limitations both as to site and time of year will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter processing closure will not be unduly restrictive, since processing material can be moved off-site during the winter and stored at nearby storage sites, if necessary, and loading and unloading of trucks may continue during the winter. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 a, ,: P r 0 0 Y 5 conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner, the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases, new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 i02 - 00-i Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are"protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #459 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MEMO FROM PUBLIC WORKS ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 6. COPY LETTER HURTLEY 8/2/89 7. COPY LETTER G. WILLIAMS ETC 8/8/89 GU ' an o,( ni Co C.omr�a�,on�s d_eci-='ion M nu_"Z TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #469 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2 PUBLIC WORKS MEMO ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. LETTER OF AUG 2, 1989 FROM HURTLEY'S 6. LETTER FROM G. WILLIAMS, BRYANT, HEYDr* 7. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 8. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �v. cz�c!1 c�, Camm;�an�2;rS i^v�rjrp, n �� LLti J 6e- ston rn'ln'-r+L- V U 10 � - U0 f9 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 461 Site Number 461, occupying tax lots 1501 and 1600 in Town- ship 14 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 9, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 461 comprises 660 acres and is located west of the Deschutes River just north of Lower Bridge west of Terrebonne. The site is owned by a partnership, including Frank Nolan, Robert Reimenschneider and Norman Weigand, is zoned EFU-80 and FP and is located within a Federal Wild and Scenic River corridor and a State Scenic Waterway. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-80, EFU-40 and RR -10. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report commis - 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 $. sioned by the County by an appraiser describing the property and the surrounding area was entered into the record at the hearing. Testimony was received from the Coalition for the Deschutes, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the owner. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 350,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. In addition, the site has 2 million cubic yards of diaco- lite. The diacolite is deposited underneath the gravel deposit. The conflicts and ESEE analysis is done largely on the basis of mining the aggregate, since that is the over- lying deposit. Mining of the diacolite would add additional benefits to mining the site, while adding few negative consequences beyond those suffered due to the aggregate mining operation. Diacolite has a commodity value as a material used in glass, mushroom bedding, filters, kitty litter, decorative uses and other uses. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located west and east of Lower Bridge Road on the west side of the Deschutes River Crossing. The haul road entrance is a private dirt road. The site is approximately six miles west of Terrebonne. The site is essentially level on a bench above the Deschutes River. Lower Bridge Road runs through the site at a lower elevation. On both sides of Lower Bridge Road, the site has had extensive surface mining. There is a large tractor on the site, along with settling ponds, old mill buildings which are falling down and a large water tank. THe site has been mined for a number of different materials, including sand, gravel and diatomaceous earth. The Deschutes River borders the eastern edge of the site and is within 250 feet of past mining. The site has natural vegetation growing on it. There were quite a few deer tracks and deer noted on the site at the time of inspection. There is electricity on the site and there appears to be underground, piped water available near the settling ponds. There are two sparsely developed subdivisions with little sales activity located to the south and east of the subject site. To the east, on the opposite side of the river is a large farm with a small area of proposed surface mining. To the west are large farms and a farm residence within one - 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 f)a 0081 half mile. The rest of the surrounding property to the north is farm and range land. Lower Bridge Estates subdi- vision is located south of the site within one-half mile. There is one home on the Buckhorn Canyon bluff which is in view of the site. Eagle Rock Estate subdivision is within one-half mile east of the property, but no homes were noted. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range, with medium frequency of use. There is also medium sensitive raptor use. The County's appraiser noted quite a few deer tracks in the snow when he went to look at the site. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's location adjacent to Lower Bridge Road, an arterial on the County's transportation map, requires protection of scenic values along that major road. Views from the road including views of the High Cascades and Smith Rocks to the West. 3. Riparian area and Fish resources. The County com- prehensive plan lists riparian areas on the Deschutes River as being an important riparian zone. In addition the plan indicates the presence of numerous fish species. ODF&W has identified this area as being good for wild rainbow trout and brown trout fisheries. The County's Comprehensive Plan calls for the County to support efforts by ODF&W to manage appropriate stream reaches for wild trout, including supporting habitat enhancement efforts. 4. State Scenic Waterway/Federal Wild and Scenic River. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River has been designated as a "scenic" river segment in the federal Wild and Scenic River system. The segment has also been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Designation by State and Federal governments includes a one-quarter mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that a portion of the site falls within the scenic waterway and wild and scenic corridor. The Deschutes River was designated a federal wild and scenic river in this section due to the outstanding 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 7t) L,J �?_ ., 0 0 b 2 scenic, fishery, vegetative, and historical/cultural resources in the area. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County, noting that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. (According to the river study, no historical/cultural resources are located at this particular site.) 5. Cultural and Historic Sites. Although the staff report indicates the possible existence of an old historic wagon road at the site, nothing in the record substan- tiates this fact. In addition, the Deschutes County/ City of Bend Deschutes River Study (River Study), which inventoried historic and cultural site in the Deschutes Canyon, including this site, indicates that no historic or cultural resources were found at this site. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presen- ce of machinery on the site, the building of in- frastructure, such as access roads, fences, and proces- sing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. In this case, much of the site has already been mined, much of which is not subject to reclamation laws. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site (especially in sites such as this near riparian areas). The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. (3) Fish resources would be impacted by increased turbidity and sedimentation to the extent surface water runoff from the site entered the river. It appears that all mining activity appears on the level above the river, lessening the risk of riparian habitat destruction and sedimentation. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 { � 10 i+J;_p - 0083 (4) Impacts on the Deschutes Wild and Scenic River cor- ridor/State Scenic Waterway would include visual impacts from surface and vegetation disturbance (to the extent such impacts are visible from inside the canyon) and possible water quality degradation. The state scenic waterway law allows for mining operations in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks Depart- ment regulation. Mining is not precluded on private lands by federal designation. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and in- creased human presence could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and streambed, and loss of vegetation and riparian habitat associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Because of the climate, forest uses are not likely to occur. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the EFU-80 zone would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, feedlot use, personal landing strips and other mining uses. Presently, the surrounding area is largely undeveloped with only a few homes and farms located within one-half mile. (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. Letters from nearby residents raised concerns about the narrow County roads leading down to and out of the canyon in this area and stated that increased truck traffic would create a hazard for local residents on the roads. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and (4) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently existing at the site or within the impact area, only a few homes and farms exist within the impact area. It is not possible to predict what the potential is of such uses occurring. There are two nearby subdivisions that could intensify conflicts in the future. The Board finds that, apart from the subdivisions, the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development from occurring near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important -enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, riparian areas, fish resources, and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling on Lower Bridge Road who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on fish and wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mor- tality rate for the area's wildlife. Excavation in or near the River could destroy riparian areas and fish habitat and degrade water quality. The Board finds that if mining were limited to the plateau impacts on riparian, fish, and scenic resources in the canyon would be avoided. In some cases over the long term, surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. It appears that much of this site was excavated prior to reclamation laws and is beyond the authority of reclamation laws under present law. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 ).tja 008E The Board finds that this site is located within six miles of Highway 97 to the east and that the site would according- ly be well situated as a source for materials in any ongoing maintenance or construction of that highway. The Board finds that other than the Gunzner site to the east, there are no other significant sources of aggregate in the Northern part of the County closer to the Highway 97 area as this. The Board finds generally that the energy conse- quences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs in the area. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 iiia -, U 0 8 recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the Coun- ty's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveabil- ity and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is ini.micable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 1(:)�_p - 0088 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the economy of Deschutes County. (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County; at 350,000 cubic yards, this site is a sizeable site on the inventory. (c) This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway 97 construction jobs. (d) The site is currently being used for surface mining. (e) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (f) The Deschutes River and its corridor is an important natural features in the County, as has been demonstrat- ed at this site by its state and federal designation for Scenic Waterway status. (g) Preserving the Deschutes River is important to the burgeoning recreational economy of the County. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This cost was mentioned in particular in regard to this and other sites making use of Lower Bridge Road. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area and the Redmond market area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations; in this case, the owner has indicated that that would not be a problem. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of preclud- ing or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 000. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resour- ces for upkeep and improvement of Highway 97 in the northern part of the County would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development of or occupation of individual pieces of private property. With that commitment comes economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses at and surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 02 M 0092 (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Mining operations and activity, including placement and operation of processing equipment and operation of heavy equipment to extract and transport mineral and aggregate shall be consistent with DEQ standards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The restrictions and conditions set forth by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in its letter of August 10, 1989 identifying this site as a deer winter range site shall be applied to the site, including the provi- sion that processing and blasting be limited between the period of December 1 through April 30 of each year. (e) A 100 -foot setback shall be maintained from the rimrock so as to hide the mining activity from view when viewed from the middle of the river. (f) Extraction shall be limited to 5 acres at a time, with ongoing incremental reclamation (subject to DOGAMI review and approval). The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and the 100 -foot setback from the rimrock above the river. The Board further finds that the winter limitations on processing will offer protection for deer. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 1P 0093 Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities, and if a crusher is allowed at the site, such uses must demonst- rate that they will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 15 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 102 - 0094 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 16 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 4 1415 I T A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #461 1. MAP 02 - 0095 2. MAP 3. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 4. LETTER FROM GARY W. LYNCH DATED 1/19/88 5. LETTER FROM E. FRANK SCHNITZER DATED 12/21/87 6. LETTER FROM GARY W. LYNCH DATED 12/7/87 7. LETTER FROM GARY W. LYNCH DATED 11/3/87 8. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 10/13/87 9. LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 4/23/87 r� 10. LETTER FROM FRED GUNZNER DATED 2/13-/87 11. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 1/20/87 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/19/86 13. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 11/10/86 14. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 11/5/86 15. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 10/29/86 16. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 11/18/85 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 8/14/85 18. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 12/31/84 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 11/19/84 20. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 10/31/84 21. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/18/83 22. APPLICATION FOR OPERATING PERMIT 4- It ioal - 009 23. APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 24. LETTER FROM ROBERT L. JOHNNIE DATED 7/17/80 25. PERFORMANCE BOND TO CONDUCT SURFACE MINING DATED 2/27/78 26. DICALITE INFORMATION SHEET 27. LETTER FROM DOGAMI TO NOLAN ET. AL. 6/2/88 28. LETTER FROM DOGAMI TO NOLAN ET. AL. 29. LETTER FROM MID -OREGON CRUSHING TO DOGAMI 9/20/88 30. LETTER FROM DEQ TO NOLAN 1/31/89 31. LETTER FROM DEQ TO NOLAN 4/3/89 32. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 33. NOTIFICATION MAPS 34. LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 35. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 36. MYLAR 37. LETTER FROM LIDELL 8/14/89 38. LETTER FROM REX BARBER 8/15/89 39. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 40. LETTER FROM DAVID JAQUA 8/18/89 2 0A 0097 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 465 Site Number 465, occupying tax lot 900 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 465 comprises approximately 5 acres and is located on southwest flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Division and is zoned RR -10. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU-20 and MUA-10. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 Il 0008 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is on the southwest flank of Tetherow Butte and slopes gently down to the southwest. The site can be viewed from the lower elevations around the butte. Except for the excavated area, the site has natural sagebrush and grasses. The subject site is in the middle of a large area of active cinder mining. Within one-half mile to the east are three large cinder pits. To the west is residential acreage and the Redmond sewer plant. The area to the north is a cinder mining area. The subject site has good access off paved streets. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The resource zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent EFU-20 and EFU-40 zoning indi- cates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 10 -a 0000 such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 1 4a� The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 0 10 1 activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 11 () 2 - 010 2 Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 0,� M 0 10 3 source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97. d. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 102 0104 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con - 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 a ,, L )?_ O 0 flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 (J ;---" -' U 10 i buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 . f► - (7108 The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements,.noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 1, '`1' a : ze TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #465 INVENTORY SHEET APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAPS MYLAR -)0►1 ~0109 i0;_11 01 10 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 466 Site Number 466, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24. 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 466 comprises approximately 20 acres and is located off of Pershall Way on the southwest flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by Fred Elliot and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU-20 and SMR. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 5 million cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located north of Pershall Way just north of the City of Redmond cinder pit on the southwest flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is visible from the south and west. The site is near the top of the butte and mining in the future will have a greater visual impact on the butte. There are electrical lines going through the site and a communications tower which is located within the subject property. The subject site is in the middle of a large area of active cinder mining. Within one- half mile to the south and east are five large, active cinder pits. To the west is residential acreage properties and the Redmond sewage treatment plant. There was one letter in opposition to this site from Joyce Givins. This letter expressed a concern that as mining moves up the slope, it will become more visible and effect views. This letter also talked about noise and dust from the mining operation. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent EFU 20 and EFU 40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads., fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 0113 affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. . 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 tJ2 �" 011 consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 x oz - 0115 would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 Ii!;� - 011G important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records Of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con - 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 10?1 - 0110 flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting lana uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 I .. °� 0119 b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. Only that portion of the site lying within 330 feet of the westerly boundary of the property shall be zoned surface mining. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 i§ ,.0 4. b i 0 12 0 Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that surface mining activity which extends up Tetherow Butte beyond 330 feet from the westerly property line of the subject property will have a significant impact on views in the area. There is adequate cinder resource on the lower 330 feet to meet any future demands for cinders. The value of the resource on the upper portion of this site does not outweight the visual impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 7 ¢o .L(j2 " 0122 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #466 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. APPLICANTS INFORMATION ON QUALITY & QUANTITY 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 5. NOTIFICATION MAP 6. MYLAR 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. LETTER FROM FRED ELLIOTT 9. LETTER FROM JOYCE GIVENS 10,( �.,vm CUmm,»nor � d.cu��o� on, nu.. --> 102 -^ 0123 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 467 Site Number 467, occupying tax lot 601 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989, and again for discuss on October 24, 1989. On November 1, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should [not] be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 467 comprises approximately 50 acres and is located on the southwest flank of Tetherow Butte north of Redmond. The site is owned by Knorr Rock and Land Co. is zoned RR -10. Adjacent land is zoned SM, EFU-20, MUA-10 and SMR. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the econo- mic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the con- flicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding area was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 i02 - 0124 Testimony was received from Duffy Knorr, President of Knorr Rock and Land Co., and several surrounding property owners who expressed opposition to the subject zoning of the property for surface mining. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 5,000,000 cubic yards of cinders of good quality. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located north of Pershall Way along the top of Tetherow Butte north of the City of Redmond cinder pit. Access to the site is off an extension of 10th Street in this area. The site is along the top and the northern side of the butte and slopes downward toward the west and north. The site is readily visible from the surrounding area since this site is near the top of the butte and is higher is elevation than all of the surrounding land. There has been no historic mining on the subject site. The site is just north of a large area of active cinder mining. Within one-half mile to the south and east are six large cinder pits. Directly to the west are residential acreage properties. To the north is a vacant subdivision. There are steep slopes to existing cinder pits which abut the subject property. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Scenic values. The high visibility of the butte from surrounding properties creates a conflict with scenic values of the butte from surrounding streets. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467N. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the MUA-10 and EFU-20 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the MUA-10 and EFU-20 zones would include: (1) At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SMR zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture or forestry may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated por- tions of the site. Uses in the MUA-10 and EFU-20 zone would also be conflicting in this regard, except for farms uses on unexcavated portions of the site. (2) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and off-road vehicle tracks. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly on residential uses. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The public testimony included testimony that included testimony that questioned the need for additional cinder 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 L02 01216 pits in an area that already has dozens of cinder pits. Testimony indicated that opening a new pit at this site would extend an existing cinder pit up the side of Tetherow Butte and create a significant visual impact. Testimony also centered on the fact that with all the existing cinder pits, additional cinder pits would eventually consume the entire butte. The Deschutes County Planning Commission recommendation not to zone the site for surface mining indicated that the top of the butte needed to be preserved for its landmark characteristics. The property owner indicated that allowing mining on the subject site would allow some of the steep slopes on pits adjoining the site to be flattened out. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts, the conflicting uses in the zone are as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are a number of existing homes within close proximity to the site. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. The Boards finds that there are numerous existing cinder pits and there is no reason to open a new cinder pit in an area where so much cinders is readily available from exist- ing pits. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that there are social .consequences which result from removing the undisturbed 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 � 012 r portion of the top of Tetherow Butte through mining of cinders. While there are numerous existing pits on the butte, saving that undisturbed portion of the butte toward the top protects the public from the ultimate destruction of a known landmark by surface mining. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued or increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. There is some degree of need in the County for cinders and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that there are no energy consequences at stake with this site since there are numerous sites directly adjacent to or around all sides of the butte which are in close proximity to any potential use of the cinders. For these reasons, the Board finds that the energy consequences of not allowing mining on the subject site are insignifi- cant. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufa- cturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that states that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads any longer. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggre- gate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valu- able sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have posi- tive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 10 012,9 involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the conflicting natural resources are more important than the cinder resource based on the following facts: (a) This cinder source is surrounded by existing cinder pits; failure to zone this site will not adversely affect the supply of cinders in the county; (b) There are other cinder sources in the County that the County is protecting that can supply cinders for road maintenance needs; (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (f) The scenic views of the butte from the surrounding area are enjoyed by many people. Therefore, the Board finds that the conflicting natural resources should be protected and the cinder resource should not be. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16- 010(2) the conflicting resources should be protected fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area, depending upon the level of use. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of cinders has no overall positive energy consequences due to the numerous existing cinder sites in the surrounding area. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The protection of conflicting land uses could have the effect of causing higher transportation costs to the extent that denial of mining approval would cause cinders to be hauled to their point of use from more remote sites. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, there 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 102 - 0131 is an added cost of .22 per ton mile from extraction sites to the point of use. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. This particular site represents a significant cinders resource. However, cinders are plentiful in this area and millions of cubic yards are being zoned surface mining and protected for future use. All of the sites which are being zoned in this area are existing cinder pits which have less impact on the surrounding area. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by develop- ment where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater distan- ces. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 a -p V i o z , 0 13 2 22. Relative Values of Mineral Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that relative to one another the conflicting uses are more important than the cinder resource. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses;] Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will protect fully the conflicting uses at and surround- ing the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting mineral resources, as the Board finds that there has never been a concern about the adequacy of cinder availability in the County and that it has chosen to zone and protect 24 cinder sites representing 21,830,000 cubic yards of cinders. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 �X f� i air A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #467 INVENTORY LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND ESTIMATE OF QUANTITY & QUALITY APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAPS LETTER OF QUALITY AND QUANTITY FROM KNORR 8/20/89 LETTER HALAIDSEK 8/11/89 MYLAR PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION LETTER FROM JOYCE GIVENS LETTER FROM HALAISEK 1�rd c� Gvrnmis5lpn�cSc'�cx� m'��t,�t�S t�cd C.cc»,rr„rr;�ssioc�ecs d2c.:�s'�on m►n�.S J j ? 013 4 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 475 Site Number 475, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 15, Range 10, Section 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 475 comprises approximately 120 acres and is located in Cloverdale, one-quarter mile south of Highway 126, just west of site no. 248. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is currently zoned SMR. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-40, EFU- 20 and LM. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 r•� In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife and one area resident who lives on Highway 126 opposing SM zoning. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is located SW of the inter- section of the McKenzie Highway and Slayton Road. There is no legal access to the site. The closest access is a farm road at the south end of Sisters Aggregate's property along Slayton Road. The subject site is one-quarter mile south of the McKenzie Highway at Camp Polk Loop. The site is naturally vegetated with juniper tress and sage brush. There appears to be an electrical line going across the site. The site is unimproved. Directly to the east of the site is a farmed acreage. To the north are residential farm properties. To the northeast is the Sisters Aggregate cinder mine. Within a half mile of the site are residential acreage properties, farms, gravel pits to the south and the cinder pit to the northeast. The site would be used by Deschutes County as a source of cinders for "sanding" icy roads. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route. 2. Open Space and Scenic Values. The LM zoning indicates high concern for scenic values along the Highway 126 corridor. The site would be quite visible from Highway 126 Conflicts. Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 L(jA 013() 1. Scenic and open space values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust would most likely be visible within the LM zone along Highway 126. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface dis- turbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are not water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conver- sely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic and physical scarring of the landscape would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land use conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the EFU-20 and EFU-40 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts That Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the sites would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SMR zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture or forestry may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated por- tions of the site. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 iI(ja 0137 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except geothermal uses, utility uses, landfill uses, personal use landing strips and off-road vehicle tracks. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly on residential uses. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts, the conflicting uses in the zone are as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are a few existing homes within close proximity to the site. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflict with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and open space values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dissuaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the County. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and visually disturb the landscape. Such impacts may well adversely affect the attributes that caused rural residents to locate there. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 -m:7 fit .0 f)�' -' 0 13, 8 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued or increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term, surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. There is some degree of need in the County for cinders and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources B. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that states that cinders 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 r will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. Because of the cost of hauling cinders to their point of use, about .22 per ton mile, failure to zone this site could increase the costs of the Deschutes County road sanding program if no other cinder sources were available nearby. 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of open space and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances unless other sources were available nearby. The County does have other cinder resources nearby in sites 459 and 469, therefore the Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources are more important that the cinder resource based on the following facts: 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 �^ U 1 4 0 a. There are other cinder sources nearby that the County is protecting that can meet Deschutes County's needs for cinders for sanding roads; b. There is no access to the site; and C. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that the conflicting natural resources should be protected at the expense of the cinder resource. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660- 16-010(2), the conflicting natural resources shall be fully protected. The Board's decision was made specifically by comparing the merits of this site with sites 359/369. Those sites have a greater quantity of cinders and no access problems. It appears that the staff decision failed to consider the fact that the site has no access. The Board overrules the staff report in this regard. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation, the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area, depending upon the level of use. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. In this case, there are some existing residential uses nearby that could be adversely affected. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby roadways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. On the other hand, much of the area within one-half mile of the mine has already been developed or planned for develop- ment. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 14 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most of the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise -sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The protection of conflicting land uses could have the effect of causing higher transportation costs to the extend 8 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 475 i� U 14 2 that denial of mining approval would cause cinders to be hauled to their point of use from more remote sites. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, there is an added cost of .22 per ton mile from extraction sites to the point of use. In this case, the Board has zoned nearby County -owned sites 459/469 for surface mining. These sites will satisfy the need for cinders for road sanding in this area. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Mineral Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that relative to one another, the conflicting uses are more important than the cinder resource. This finding is based upon the following facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from paragraph 12 above; b. Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development and 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 jij�p ., 0143 occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16- 010, it will protect fully the conflicting uses at and surrounding the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting resources and uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting mineral resources, as the Board finds that there has never been a concern about the adequacy of cinder availability in the County and that it has chosen to zone and protect 24 cinder sites representing 21,830,000 cubic yards of cinders. In particular, the Board has satisfied the County's need for cinders in this area by zoning sites 459/469 surface mining. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ?.+.►%? 0144 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #475 INVENTORY SHEET MEMO FROM DES. CO. PUBLIC WORKS ON QUANTITY OF RESOURCE MEMO FROM DES. CO. PUBLIC WORKS ON QUANTITY OF RESOURCE APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAPS LETTER FROM ANITA BART LEMAY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 10-Ae- �,., O�F.t w q-io- � obComr,r;,s5ionecg 1��� n;,�k.b_S • L" - 0145 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 482 Site Number 482, occupying tax lot 103 in Township 15 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 11, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 482 comprises approximately 200 acres and is located off Maple Avenue and is known as Negus Landfill. This site is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned EFU-40. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-40 and MUA-10. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's select fill resources and con- flicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 L02 0140 ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 2 million cubic yards of select fill material of which the quality is excellent. 2. Site Characteristics. This is the existing Negus Landfill. This is the only landfill in northern Deschutes County and has in the past been used as a borrow site for fill dirt to facilitate the landfill. The site is located northwest of Redmond. Land use in the surrounding area consists of primarily vacant range land. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. Most natural resources values have already been impacted due to the existence of a surface mine and landfill on this site. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the EFU-40 and MUA-10 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the EFU-40 and MUA-10 zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 Z(j2 - 0147 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Select Fill Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the select fill in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 i(J2 U148 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Most natural resources on the site have already been impacted by the existence of the landfill and surface mine. Select fill is in short supply in the County and this material is a quality fill material that is rare. The Board finds that select fill resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 10. Social Consequences. Landfills are needed near the areas that they serve. The social consequence of closing a landfill would require relocating the landfill and signifi- cant impacts on a new site. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to the Redmond urban area would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the select fill resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for select fill. b. Select fill resources are a locationally-dependent resource and this site is a large select fill source on the inventory. d. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the select fill resour- ce and the conflicting natural resources should be pro- tected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16- 010(3) protection of the select fill resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the select fill resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of select fill as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 I bo employment in the mining industry and the development opportunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and select fill resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 18 preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The elimination of any of the select fill resources identi- fied could have impacts on the availability of those resources within the 20 -year planning period. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if select fill had to be brought in from greater distances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Select Fill Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the con- flicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are impor- tant relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the select fill resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 d. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the select fill resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient select fill resources to meet the County's select fill needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the select fill resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining.county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 61 01b4 a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the select fill resource from con- flicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other select fill sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient select fill resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 EXN(Bii-t. � TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #482 1. RESOURCE SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. MYLAR 6. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 7. MAP 8. LETTER FROM KEITH & BARBARA CORWIN I 4, ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 488 Site Number 488, occupying tax lots 100, 600, 2000 and 2100 in Township 17 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 6, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 488 comprises approximately 343 acres and is located along the west side of Cline Falls Road just north of Tumalo. The site is owned by Bend Aggregate and Paving and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned SMR, MUA-10, EFU-20, RSR -5 and RSR -M. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife, the Coalition for the Deschutes, a representative from Bend Aggregate, the Parks and Recreation 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 IUB' -015 Division of the Oregon Division of Transportation (State Parks) and numerous neighbors of the site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 400,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This is a large site located along the west of Cline Falls Road, just north of Tumalo. The site has been cleared and is composed of two existing mining operations, knwon as the Cline Falls Pit and the Highland Pit, both owned and operated by Bend Aggregate and Paving. A map attached hereto as Exhibit "B" delineates the two sites. Parts of the site appears to have been reclaimed with grassy pasture. The Deschutes River is within 250 feet of the site along the south end. The river is slightly lower in grade than the site. This site is located in a large area of gravel and pumice mining north of Tumalo. The surrounding property is primar- ily mining sites. To the north is an unrecorded subdivision of residential acreage properties. Some of these properties are within 250 feet of the site and have views over the site of the surrounding terrain and hills to the south. In addi- tion, there is a house to the west of the site. The site is highly visible from properties on the rimrock along the eastern edge of the flood plain. The town of Tumalo borders the site to the south. Highway 20 West is within one-half mile of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. State scenic waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River has been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Such designation includes a one-quarter mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that the site falls within the scenic waterway. State scenic waterway designation is based upon a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geological, botanical, archeological and recreational and other values. The Board finds that the Deschutes River was designated in this section for reasons of scenic values. 2 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 488 `a 4 The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 2. Wildlife habitat. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer winter range. Although the staff report indicates that the site has scenic value due to the Highway 20 corridor LM zoning, the LM zoning along Highway 20 specifically leaves this property out. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construc- tion of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. (2) Impacts on the Deschutes River state scenic waterway would include visual impacts from surface mining and vegetation disturbance within the scenic waterway corridor as set forth in paragraph (1) above. In addition, the corridor would be impacted by the noise and dust from mining operations and increased truck traffic in the area. There is no indication that surface mining at this site would create water quality problems. State scenic waterway status does not preclude mining in scenic waterways, but allows for mining operations in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks approval. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 (RSR -M) and 4.150 (RSR -5) of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the SM and SMR zones to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclusion of other uses. (2) On those portions of the site available for other development, the impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensitive uses, as defined below and aesthetic impacts. These uses would include all uses within the zone except utility uses. Surrounding zones (EFU-20, RR -10, RSR -M, RSR -5) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. Existing residential development to the south in the town of Tumalo, to the north in the Highland Estates subdivision and to the west could be adversely affected by noise. Area residents testified that the noise from current operations at the site are very disruptive. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. During the hearing on this site, neighbors testified that current operations create bothersome dust condi- tions. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods and community centers. Several neighbors testified about the dangers associated with the truck traffic from the cement operations, including rocks falling from loaded trucks and slow-moving trucks on public roadways. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The site is within view of surrounding homes. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could Possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to Highway 20 leading into Bend and the Deschutes scenic waterway. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife and scenic attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined. 7. Environmental Consecruences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic and recrea- 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 j,02 M 0161 tional qualities of the Deschutes River corridor. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views of the Deschutes River corridor would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topography. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances, since in any event the operator would be required to restore the site to the extent the permit area is not grandfathered under reclamation laws. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to the Bend-Tumalo market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this that are convenient to urban market areas and processing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 1(j2 0162 resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend-Tumalo market area and that consequently preserva- tion of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower ag- gregate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 0163 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic, wildlife, and recreational values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental conse- quences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources, and scenic and recreational resources are often limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development. Scenic resources such as the Deschutes River scenic waterway are limited in number and cannot be recreated by manmade substitutes. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the Goal 5 resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the aggregate resource and the conflicting Goal 5 scenic waterway are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the Deschutes County economy; (b) Considering the quantity, quality, and location of this site close to the Bend urban area market, this is an important aggregate deposit; (c) This site is an existing mining site; (d) The adjacent Deschutes River scenic waterway is an important scenic resource, for both visitors and residents. Such resources have importance for the regional economy. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting scenic waterway resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660- 16-010(3), protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the scenic attributes of the adjacent Deschutes Scenic Waterway. The Board finds that the deer winter range values referred to by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in its August 10, 1989, letter that is a part of this record are not significant enough to protect since (1) these values are not currently inventoried for this site on the Deschutes 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 t i;1 ;-` - U 16 4 County Comprehensive Plan; (2) the site is surrounded by residential development and the town of Tumalo; and (3) the Department of Fish and Wildlife testified at a hearing on the adjacent Bend Aggregate Plant site that the area was not in any deer winter range and should not be protected for wildlife. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. There was no testimony on this site concerning property values. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to scenic sites such as the Deschutes River scenic waterway. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely affect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. These impacts were testified to by the neighbors of the existing sites. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. In addition, there is the further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of aggregate that are located close in to market areas. 10 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 488 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate materials are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. (c) The site is located close to urban markets. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 10? 9 0 16 7 and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the exist- ing SM zoning will be maintained, subject to the following ESEE conditions: Highland (a) Current conditions imposed under the site plan and development plan agreement currently in effect for the operation will remain in effect, including limitations on the hours of operation and a prohibition of on-site processing. (b) Setbacks of residential uses. Cline Falls (a) Setbacks on adjacent conflicting uses. (b) Sound buffering and screening of the surface mining operation. (c) Placement of processing operations and equipment for the mining at a location on site that will permit such operations within the sound and dust level limitations required by DEQ. (d) Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing and transportation of the material that meet DEQ vehicle noise level requirements. (e) Processing on the site will be allowed. The map attached hereto as Exhibit "B" delineates the areas covered by the Highland site and the Cline Falls site. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site sill be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact, the restrictions on winter processing, the hours of operation, the 5 -acre limit on excavation, and the reclamation plan conditions. The Board finds that the screening and buffering provisions of the Deschutes County zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014, meet the ESEE screening and buffering requirements. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting mineral and aggregate resources, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 I 0�! - 0169 storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise stan- dards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 EXHIBIT SCHEDULE SITE NO. 488 Date Color Received Exhibit Description Code Board of Commissioners Decision Minutes Inventory Information Board of Commissioners Hearing Minutes Planning Commission Recommendation ? Sheet Mylar Map Map Staff Report & Appraiser's Comments 89 03-15 DOGAMI Mined Land REclamation Permit 89 04-13 Letter from Randy David (ODOT) 89 08-07 Letter from Virginia P. Davis 89 08-09 Letter from Jerold Cort 89 08-11 Letter from Coalition for the Deschutes 89 08-14 Letter from pat & Kathy Gregg 89 08-14 Letter from Kenneth E. Cardwell & Petition 89 08-16 Letter from Jan Ernst (ODOT, Parks & Red) 89 08-89 DOGAMI Report of On -Site Inspection Paae 17 1 16 15 14 6 2 5 4 8 3 12 9 7 13 10 11 18 r01 .. � �; � 'i.fC v .. ^ . �, .. i... _ ~ . fi, 1!dN•N i 5�, � r�ri�: �s7$S";.• .6 fJ'�' #��({ti � ! .� • • • �,Y ,, t LO o N •i• t�l � ili e �'YIpT O 1 — N 'FN I N N •' �� O • i .L L , Gy W �•i 0 1. � � 9i v • ey ox o ,f •• s x O � N r~!�a y3_ 3 p1 N i � n i M .. � �; � 'i.fC v .. ^ . �, .. i... _ ~ . fi, 1!dN•N i 5�, � r�ri�: �s7$S";.• .6 fJ'�' #��({ti � ! .� • • • �,Y ,, t LO o N •i• t�l � ili e �'YIpT O 1 — N 'FN I N N •' �� O • i .L L , Gy W �•i 0 1. � � 9i v • ey ox o ,f •• s x O � N j , 01 12 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 498 Site Number 498, occupying tax lot 2200 in Township 19 South, Range 14 E.W.M., located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 25, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that prelimin- ary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 498 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located approximately one mile south of Highway 20 and four miles west of Millican. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SMR. Adja- cent land is zoned EFU-320 - WA. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 498 01 Y3 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,00 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the State of Oregon Department of Transportation standards for asphalt and base rock. 2. Site Characteristics. The area is level range land which has an existing sand and gravel pit. The remainder of the site is natural land with no special features or drainage problems. Property in the surrounding area to the south and east is grassy range land and Horse Ridge is located to the northwest. China Hat Road runs to the west of the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range and antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The views of the subject site would be from China Hat Road. China Hat Road is not in a landscape management corridor, however, it is a relatively heavily used dirt road providing access for hunting and recreation. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 - WA zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 498 0 1 finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protec- tion of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 498 by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and antelope habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highway 20. the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 498 year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 498 0 1 i t' streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 498 f While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 498 A2 U10 positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 498 such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aagreqate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 498 r ?,0;_11 - 0 1 b (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- 10 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 498 s P nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 498 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #498 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 3. NOTIFICATION LIST 4. PLANNING COMMISSION 5. MYLAR TOPO MAP Cornmv5scnecs inu.EtS X01 �tx o6 C� vn n-� �� is rx� r� ckc-isicn m in�.,�CL�� ion ,0183 10�_p -^ 0 18 4 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 499 Site Number 499, occupying tax lot 200 in Township 19 South, Range 15 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on October 27, 1989. On October 27, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 499 comprises approximately 13.7 acres and is located one-half mile west of Millican along Highway 20 East. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Division and is zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and LM. The area is also in a deer and antelope winter range and is zoned WA. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 Zi 21 �^01 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of ODOT quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. This site has been used as an aggre- gate site in the past and is located on both sides of Highway 20 East. Land use in the surrounding area is range land. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. In addition, the LM zoning designation also shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and streambed, and loss of vegetation and riparian habitat associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-320 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses EFU-320 zone would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and (4) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. However, due to the large lot sizes in the area, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 10 -1 1" 018 1 The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and antelope habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 0;e, 0 18 8 traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Natural 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimitable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. [Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event.] 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations; the owner has indicated that that would not be a problem in this case. Protection of sur- rounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and in- creasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 02 Ol resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 in the northern part of the County would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 h it 01 4 Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 ,rw E1CH i P� IT A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #499 1. OWNER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS INFORMATION SHEET -jt� afvr-� 4. NOTICE INFORMATION S. t��nn�ncl c�mmi::�CAon W(-Ommenctaiion �.� �i rd � Ccmm`,��;cx��s d�u ►on rn� nu-txs lo! 019G . x. ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 500 Site Number 500, occupying tax lot 99 in Township 19 South, Range 15 E.W.M., Section 35, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 500 comprises approximately 32 acres and is located on the north side of Highway 20 approximately one and one-quarter miles east of Millican. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SMR, LM, FP and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320, LM, SM and WA. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 I ",-Y A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 130,000 cubic yards of gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications for asphalt and road base material. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is fairly level and adjacent to a dry river drainage bed. There is an existing dirt and gravel pit on the site and there are no drainage problems. The site is naturally vegetated with sagebrush and grasses except for the area of excavation. There are no improve- ments or utilities on the site. The dry river could have seasonal runoff and the area along the dry river is on a floodplain zone. The area surrounding the subject site is primarily vacant range land. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range and antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 i0 �� -, 021100 by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and antelope habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highway 20. the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 .r 2 0 year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 a streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 02 0203 While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 102 02041 positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and. aesthetic impacts as- sociated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to.protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 • � 020U) (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #500 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. NOTIFICATION MAPS 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 5. MYLAR TOPO MAP Comm,,�-Skooec5 hoac� morn 5 $ 'tier ,(v F -i w ,,a � 0208 tri- - 0209 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 501 Site Number 501, occupying tax lot 1600 in Township 19 South, Range 15 E.W.M., Section 35, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 501 comprises approximately 140 acres and is located approximately one mile east of Millican on the north side of Highway 20. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is currently zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320, SMR, LM and FP. Most of the surrounding land is owned by State of Oregon Highway Division and Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of gravel. The quality of the gravel was not provided by the County, however, gravel from the State Highway Division pit located in the middle of the subject property has been used for road base and asphalt aggregate in the past. 2. Site Characteristics. Subject site surrounds a State Highway Division site, and is located roughly one mile east of Millican. The site is fairly level and runs along the dry river drainage bed. There is a large dirt and gravel pit on the site. Where there has not been excavation, the site is naturally vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on the subject site. There are no houses or other uses located within one-half mile of the site. The subject site is immediately adjacent to the north side of Highway 20. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range and antelope range. The site is also within a sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 021 Land uses on the EFU-320, SM and FP zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and antelope habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 I 102 - 0213 The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 0214 available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 N ? fJ 021;) ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 w ,021,1 associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aagreaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 A2 0218 (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 0-1Z Z - 0219 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 �XWB*I-r A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #501 1. NOTIFICATION MAPS 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. UYLAR OF TOPO MAP 5. COUNTY INVENTORY SHEET 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 7. QUANITY INFORMATION Lz#e4- co m 0-bF4 u-) li- ID _8 i d .0 Comm t ��-.&%onocs hea('t c, m,flut�S j0• � � Comm��ior��S ctecisic« m�,�..�1 .0;; " 02'0 021 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 503 Site Number 503, occupying tax lot 1300 in Township 19 South, Range 16 E.W.M., Sections 32 and 33, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 503 comprises approximately 27.5 acres and is located on the north side of Highway 20 approximately four and one-half miles east of Millican. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Division and is currently zoned EFU-320, FP, WA and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320, FP, LM and WA. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 0222 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications for base rock and asphalt. 2. Site Characteristics. The subject site is located along the north side of Highway 20 and runs parallel to the highway. The site is level and has not had prior mining activity. The site is naturally vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on the subject site. The neighborhood is vacant range land. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated antelope, deer winter range and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 and FP zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protec- 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 + 0223 tion of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and antelope habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 ()� -, X141' opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. -There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 r.+.+;_1 - 0228 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. _Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this -site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 f:► 0 2 `0 visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family,dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to'a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 i02 - U4j (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 i`r A a 0? 0 2 ')'2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #503 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. NOTIFICATION MAPS 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION `5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP icom � 1 com(n rvfs Q'-.C((Y, YY1i (Ltd `d . .-dca cd J ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 505 Site Number 505, occupying tax lot 300 in Township 20 South, Range 16 E.W.M., Sections 1 and 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 505 comprises approximately 27.5 acres and is located approximately 1.6 miles west of the Prineville cutoff on Highway 20 East. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and FP. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 A-! 0234 evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 275,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The parcel consists of gently rolling hills with a dry river running through the site. It does not appear that there has been any surface mining activity on this site, however an adjoining site, site no. 507, has had surface mining and storage. The site is naturally vegetated and has no improvements or utilities. The are is natural range land surrounding the site. There are no dwellings or other uses within one-half mile of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range, antelope and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. In addition, the LM zoning designation also shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 lija , 02:35 scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 i(J;2 ^ 0236 available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highway 20. the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 { A i i0;_1 02 J8 traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral. Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 i)a 0230 properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 L+J- 02 40 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 I 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 10.2 0242 Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 +J� 0243 (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #505 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 6. MAP SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT 7. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEARING MINUTES 8. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECISION MINUTES 9. LETTER FROM ODFW 9-10-89 N 02 0245 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 506 Site Number 506, occupying tax lot 600, 700 and 800 in Township 20 South, Range 16 E.W.M., Section 3, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 506 comprises approximately 58.7 acres and is located approximately one-half mile south of Highway 20 East, approximately six miles west of Millican. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SM, LM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320, FP and WA. Most of the surrounding land is owned by the Bureau of Land Manage- ment. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 Lt.)0206 evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 36,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The area is generally level with some gently rolling hills. There has been some minor surface excavation along the side hills. The majority of the site is natural with vegetation of sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on this site. The neigh- borhood is generally vacant range land and there are no dwelling or other improvements within one-half mile of the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated antelope and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. In addition, the LM zoning designation also shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 -01247 Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 Iiz 0249 The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 x t� LUQ - 0250 protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 io2 - 0253 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 j.();_�, - 0 2 b 4 Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 sf 21 0255 (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #506 1. INVENTORY SHEETS 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORTS 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP T i, e4tr imm ODF--ilk R �2i D Comms ��Ion�rs deccs;an m �n�,�.` a 025"P ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 508 Site Number 508, occupying tax lot 1000 in Township 20 South, Range 17 E.W.M., Section 1, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 508 comprises approximately 10 acres and is located approximately two and one-half miles north of Highway 20 East, approximately four miles northwest of Brothers. The site is owned by the State Department of Transportation and is cur- rently zoned EFU-320, FP and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and SM. Most of the surrounding land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management and George Warner. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 In addition, testimony was received from George (Duke) Warner, who testified before the Board. Mr. Warner stated he had no oppostion to the surface mining designation. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which the Oregon Department of Transporta- tion specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The site slopes gently down to the west. The area is natural range land and has no improve- ments or utilities. Access to the site is poor. The surrounding area is vacant range land. There are no dwell- ings or other noise or dust -sensitive uses within one-half mile. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated antelope and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject parcel is not within the LM zone. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and.topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 1.0 ;_1 I - 02,50 scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an .increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 "�i N +J� -y 020" The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Conseguences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily -available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 ,y v increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 J.0z� - 0Z63 on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to -Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 L U _ -, 0264 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 102 026E visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect.the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 0267 (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 �_-7V , I - TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE L5A?r Sob 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 3. NOTIFICATION MAP 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP i O Gprnrn�5`�i�CY�tS 1-�a��� rYiic��� �' Ca m m t-�;6io nerS decis'to n m nu tz s 102 0269 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 515 Site Number 515, occupying tax lot 100 in Township 20 South, Range 18 E.W.M., Section 1, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 515 comprises approximately 17.8 acres and is located on Camp Creek Road, approximately six miles northeast of Brothers. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Trans- portation and is currently zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320. Most of the surrounding land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 3 OZ M 0270 quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of aggregate which meets the Oregon Department of Transporta- tion specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This is an existing shallow surface mining pit. The site is surrounding by natural range land, and there is sagebrush and grass. There are no improvements or utilities on the site. There are no improvements or dwellings in the area. Access to the site is from a paved road which is adjacent to the subject property. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range, antelope and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The is not within an LM zone. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 0 �� - 027 1 Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Pre-existing Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a pre-existing use at the site and would be able to continue within the existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have or are already occurring and would be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site could be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and secondly, whether the site is important enough so that limitations should be placed on potential land use conflicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 �+ 0272 in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those -instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highway 20. the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 1 %J ? "' 0273 consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 0 ` - 0 2 Y 4 and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records Of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ina and screening: 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 "y (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #515 1. INVENTORY SHEETS 2. APPRAISERS COMMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 3. NOTIFICATION MAP 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMENDATION. 5, ip-4,er ram UDF—tu3 9 -to -ti 60. 06 Com m` i 55 io rLt:�> Vvzn,6 rTj n -i j nubs ` 7, F,cx, � o Come►-�, tan�r5 c C,. vn rri��u s ' 7I.N i J2 - 02�, ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 522 Site Number 522, occupying tax lot 1000 in Township 21 South, Range 19 E.W.M., Section 13, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 522 comprises approximately 320 acres and is located on the north side of Highway 20, approximately one mile east of Van Lake Road and roughly 11 miles east of Brothers. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Division and is currently zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and WA. The subject parcel consists of 40 acres of the entire 320 - acre parcel. Most of the surrounding land is owned by the State of Oregon or the Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 1,021 -0128' • identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 300,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is fairly level and is naturally vegetated range land with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on the site. The area surrounding the site is natural range land. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated anelope and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. A portion of the site is zoned LM. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. In addition, the LM zoning designation also shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. • 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 �v, ilk . Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource • 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced • 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 02 - 024 to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. • 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 � I. l.q ..~ 4 The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in . number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is ini.micable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, • 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 • protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources • should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 0 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 i 0 - 02� ,1 • The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 ;0Un-8 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts as- sociated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 0 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 it Q? - 029 . 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor . of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. • 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 • Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, • batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 24. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: 0 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 25. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses • 26. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 r TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #522 1. INVENTORY SHEETS 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP - . Le -or �cvm ObF*Lo 9-ja--g9 �. t5d3.2i G Cv��'1m,55ic?(1�T�C� r19�t� th�nu�i� �. �ix�lc� C,�mm►`..:�iCtl��� dec�sic;t� m�nu�s 10� �"U2li 102 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 524 N Site Number 524, occupying tax lot 1900 in Township 21 South, Range 20 E.W.M., Sections 20 and 21, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on October 27, 1989. On October 27, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 524 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located approximately on -half mile north of Highway 20 E, seven miles northwest of Hampton. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and WA. Most of the surrounding land is owned by R. L. Coats or the Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on October 17, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 Jo 0 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventorv. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 300,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets Oregon Department of Transpor- tation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is fairly level and natur- ally vegetated range land consisting of sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements on the subject parcel. There are electric lines along the south side of the highway and a BPA power line runs across the site. The surrounding area is range land and there are no homes or other improve- ments within one-half mile of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated antelope and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. In addition, the LM zoning designation also shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 X29 scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 (►? -, 02Ij6 In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. -There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in.the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 N R The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 ,()-� U2 # increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural -resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such -impacts can be mitigated. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 R .ca 0300 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 i �r IL l(J - 0301 this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aggreaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 m visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to.a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 N (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #524 1. OWNER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. HEARING NOTICE INFO 5. -�bnnlncl CO mrrm66%oc1 (�Comrnex 3ho� C,� • -!�oarc1 v Comrrik�,' 0n?C5, d(?US1Cn rn(<1U:::L5 A. io 0305 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 528 Site Number 528, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 22 South, Range 21 E.W.M., Section 10, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 528 comprises approximately 5.5 acres and is located three miles east of Hampton on Schrader Road, approxi- mately one and one-half mile from Highway 20 East. The site is owned by the Oregon State Highway Division and is currently zoned SMR and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and WA. Most of the surrounding land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 T4'� A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 45,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The subject site is fairly level with a gently slope to the foothills to the north and east. There is a small amount of excavation which has occurred on the site, but generally the site is naturally vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are not improvements or utilities on the subject property. The area surrounding the site is natural range land. There are no homes or improve- ments within one-half mile of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 N aA +s ' U30 all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. 'In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and antelope habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources B. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 4,0? --0309 The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate.industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 JA-e)o / i+_��'' ^ 0310 increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records Of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 031 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate.resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 02 - 0314 visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 031 (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 w A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #528 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 00, nu, Ct7mrri'56j0nC<S de"Aoo min 10; -, 0316 1(11? -.' 031 s ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 529 Site Number 529, occupying tax lot 300 in Township 22 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 18, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 529 comprises approximately 120 acres and is located two miles east of LaPine off of Finley Butte Road. The site is owned by the Oregon State Highway Division and is cur- rently zoned F-2. Adjacent land is zoned F-2. Most of the sur- rounding land is owned by U. S. Forest Service. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 tk 1A 0?, -. 0318 ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 31,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located two miles east of downtown LaPine within the Deschutes National Forest. Access to the site is off Finley Butte Road (paved), along the BPA power line easement. This site is roughly 250 feet north of Finley Butte Road. The length of the site runs along a large gully which runs east -west. The north and south borders of the site are fairly level at road height. The middle of the site is roughly 50 feet lower than the north and south edges. The site is an operating gravel pit with equipment on the site. The BPA power line crosses the site approximately .2 miles west of the easter end. The middle half of the site appears to be the area of excavation, with the borders remaining natural. There were no special views or wildlife noted. Areas which are not being excavated have natural forest vegetation. Across the road to the south is currently being cleared of beetle kill by the YCC. The subject site does not appear to have been cleared, except the middle portion where the gravel operation is. There are utility poles along he southern border of the site. Finley Butte Road is within 250 feet of the southern border of the site. Great Northern RailRoad's tracks are roughly one-half mile south of the subject site. the property surrounding the subject site is primarily in the Deschutes National Forest, except to the west which is vacant land outside the forest boundary. No residential properties were noted in this area. LaPine Cemetery is just over one-half mile north of the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has not identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site is not within an LM zone. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 +:- The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the F-2 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 # x i C), Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortal- ity rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 03ILI number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 r.►`'' 032` OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Acigregate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or coi3ditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 U 3 2. protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 r► U3�' CXH CB i -A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #529 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP -1 - *bm �d o C jmm'�`�a}or1�2r hear � � m% nuz�-5 ' tomm'f,�,610 G( -s decis�c�n IC 0323 ESEE Findings and Decision 0 Site No. 533 Site number 533, occupying tax lot 800 in Township 22 South, Range 21 E.W.M., Sections 15 and 22, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 533 comprises approximately 104 acres and is located one mile north of Highway 20 east, approximately 4 miles southeast of Hampton. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation Highway Division and is currently zoned SMR and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and WA. Most of the sur- rounding land is owned by Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and • evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 • quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has one million cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is at the base of a large hill and currently contains a 10 -acre sand and gravel pit. The remainder of the site is naturally vegetated range land with sagebrush and grasses. No improvements or utilities are located on the site. The surrounding area is natural range land. There are not homes or other improvements within one-half mile of the site. Access to the site is off of unimproved, dirt roads. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts • Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject property is not within an LM zone. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of.the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. • 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 03 • Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Pre-existing Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a pre-existing use at the site and would be able to continue within the existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have or are already occurring and would be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site could be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and secondly, whether the site is important enough so that limitations should be placed on potential land use conflicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other • natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 ,L02 - U3 ,2 . have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. • • 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and antelope habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highway 20. the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 10;_,, - 03 J., 3 • The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however . it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is.a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 L 2 -» 0 3: 4 • available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would • have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a • 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 Z►_� - 03:,15 • commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. • Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are • 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 • few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses - 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as • with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences . of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting - 8 ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 . the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. • 0 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative_ Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting 0 residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. • The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such • protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 • • mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject • to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. • 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #533 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION � • L��e/ �r�m C��,� o- l o -� c • �OQ� � � rnrrn �-Si arti�-� � C12L'i�ic.n �m �,��--- wi""4 034 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 541 Site Number 541, occupying tax lots 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500 and 2600, in Township 14 South, Range 10, Section 35, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a prelim- inary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 541 comprises approximately 10 acres and is located along Squaw Creek just east of Sisters. The site is owned by Reith Cyrus and is currently zoned RR -10. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and F-3. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report from an appraiser hired by the County to describe the site and its surroundings was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 i 0 2 - 0362 During the ESEE hearings, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Bill Dugan, a neighbor of the proposed site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. In addition to documents generated for this Goal 5 process, the file includes materials concerning applications for fill and removal permits for flood control projects at the site. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 528,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 541 runs along Squaw Creek east of Sisters on the south side of Camp Polk Road. The site is essentially a riparian meadow in and along the flood plain. Its location and elevation along the creek creates the potential for flood and drainage problems along the banks of the creek depending on time of year and water flow. The site hosts a variety of wildlife, including bald eagles, golden eagles, herons, osprey, ducks, geese and deer. The site has not been mined previously. The site currently is used as a hay field. The site is within the Wild Horse Meadows Subdivision, which is currently undeveloped land. The site is located in a suburban area of Sisters that is sparsely developed with recreational properties and small farms. There are a few homes along the creek at Camp Polk Rd. The applicant proposes to build a pond at the site in conjunction with a proposal to build a golf course and cluster development. On both sides of the creek are suburban residential proper- ties. These properties have views of the creek. Within a half mile are similar residential properties. McKinney Butte is a half mile to the north of the site and the Sisters State Park is within a half mile upstream of the site. The town of Sisters is within a half mile to the west of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 r 102 - 0343 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, the resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan lists Squaw Creek as having rainbow trout and brook trout. The Board finds from testimony in the ESEE hearing that eagles, bald eagles, osprey, ducks, geese, and other wildlife are present at the site. 2. Open space and scenic values. The County Comprehensive Plan calls for the inclusion of areas along Squaw Creek into the LM zone, which would protect scenic values 200 feet back from the river. The inventoried deposit in this case would fall within the LM zone on the flood plain. 3. Riparian habitat and wetland values. The resource element of the County Comprehensive Plan identifies this area along Squaw Creek as having sensitive ripari- an habitat. In addition, testimony at the ESEE hear- ings established area floods every year and that the water table was within 6 feet of the surface. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of vegetation, excavation on the floodplain, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences and processing facilities and fugitive dust emissions. 2. Impacts on deer would be primarily increased noise and human presence and loss of forage. The effect would generally be to cause deer to avoid such areas. 3. Impacts on fish resources could include increased turbidity and siltation resulting in loss of food sources, and loss of spawning habitat, if the area were to flood while the area was being excavated. The excavation area is located entirely within the 100 year flood plain and is also within an area set out by the Comprehensive Plan as a flash flood zone. 4. Riparian, wetland, and groundwater resources could be adversely affected by excavation on the floodplain. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 �° ' Lila - 0344 The Board finds that fish and wildlife and riparian habitat and scenic values along the creek conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat and riparian areas and scenic resour- ces, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust, increased human pre- sence, and water quality impacts as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust and physi- cal scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact fish and wildlife and their habitat and scenic values. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 and RR -10 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape -associated with surface mining, all such uses, except motorcycle tracks, utility facilities, feedlots, landfills, other mining activities, personal use landing strips, and forest product processing are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. Because of the disposition of this matter with the respect to Goal 5 conflicts, the Board finds that it need not address land use conflicts any further. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. The site is not likely to attract visi- tors, given that it is bounded by private property. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on riparian fish and wildlife habitat 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 r l� 0345 and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. The social consequences of reduced wildlife viewing opportun- ities and affected scenery would be felt primarily by neighboring residents. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on riparian fish and wildlife habitat and scenery along the creek. Surface mining activities would reduce the available forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage. Wildlife would avoid the area to find other food sources, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Excavation would take place in the flood plain. There would be no possibility of moving the operations outside of the floodplain, given the owner's plans, in order to protect possible fish habitat and other riparian values. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. However, the Board also finds that it is likely that the resource at this site will not be fully excavated, since the proposed mining operation is aimed more at a development plan for the property than providing aggregate resources to the community. Under these facts, it would be more energy efficient to excavate other sites where the full resource would be mined. Given the limited amount of material at the site and its distribution along a creekbed, it would most likely be more energy efficient to mine other sites. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of riparian habitat and fish and wildlife resources and scenic qualities would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 r �.. U3rG year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that development of this particular site is not aimed at meeting community needs for aggregate so much as it is aimed at furthering the owner's development program for his property. Accordingly, it is not known how much, if any, aggregate would be made available to the public. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at aggregate sites could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. Given the small quantity of material at this site, it is unlikely that failure to allow mining at the site would have any impact in this respect. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the Goal 5 resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of topography and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of those resources. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, riparian habitat and fish and wildlife resources are limited by locational factors. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 Q lJ%, 03�� r' 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would not have negative energy consequences. The site has a small amount of aggre- gate thinly distributed. There are other sites with much larger and more concentrated deposits that can help meet the County's needs. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the ESEE consequences, the Board finds that the Goal 5 resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. The County bases this decision on the following: (a) Although this site has a good-sized aggregate deposit on it and aggregate is in short supply in the County, development of this site may not help satisfy the com- munity's need for aggregate, given that the mining would be driven by the needs -of the owner's development and not the need in the marketplace for aggregate. (b) By its decision on other sites, the County has pre- served a total of 45,197,000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. These amounts are sufficient to meet the County's needs over the planning period. Within a five -mile radius of this site, the Board has in those decisions preserved at least 1.4 million cubic yards of aggregate materials. (c) The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, as amended by the Deschutes County/City of Bend river study gives great weight to protection of natural values in ripar- ian areas such as this one. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and that present surface mining zoning for the site will be removed and replaced within EFU-20 zoning. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 44 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #541 J.1J?- - 0348 1. MAP 2. STATEMENT FROM CYRUS ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 7. STATEMENT FROM RURAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE C8, . LETTER FROM FLORA BASIN 5/23/89 I� • 1�C7 U� CUM mis��p f12,r� �c�'� t (X� fYi� n ��c-S � fri `U Co m rri �{ \ P r1� rS deC;iS' �o cl ,r►;� c1 v- i7� S 'i 102 - 03`9 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 542 Site Number 542, occupying tax lot 2700 in Township 15 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 1, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Maudlin dissenting, that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 542 comprises approximately 5 acres and is located on a lot in the Wild Horse Plains subdivision just east of Sisters on Highway 126. The site is owned by Arnie Swarens and is zoned RR -10 and LM. Surrounding property is zoned RR -10, EFU-40 and EFU-80. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report from an 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 I i),21 0350 appraiser hired by the County to view the property and the surrounding area was entered into the record at the hearing. During the ESEE hearings, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site, the applicant and several area residents who protested zoning of the site for surface mining. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 80,000 cubic yards of good quality rock. 2. Site Characteristics and Background Information. The Board finds the following facts to be true. This site is located in the NW corner of Highway 126 and Camp Polk Road, east of Sisters. The site constitutes one lot in a platted but undeveloped 52-10t subdivision. The site is surrounded on the north, east, and west by the undeveloped subdivision of which the site is a part. The Sisters -Redmond highway runs along the Southern border of the property. Within a half mile to the south are a couple of mobile homes and frame houses. Recently, clustered housing has been approved in the area. The site is highly visible from both Camp Polk Road and Highway 126. In addition, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migra- tion corridor. Highway 126 has been signed at this site to denote a deer crossing. The purpose of this application for surface mining is to enable the developer to remove material to create a pond and to be able to sell all of the material removed. It is expected that more than 25,000 cubic yards of material will be removed. The proponents expressed no desire to develop the site into an ongoing surface mine, but only as a means to achieve their ends for digging a pond on the site. The proponents' desire is to develop the balance of the property into an RV park. The proponents testified that at the height of the excava- tion activity, there would be 30 trucks per hour. The excavation will be taken down only as far as 12 feet, regardless of how much material is present. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 1,0>' - 03a.1 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as being a deer migration route. The site lies between two deer winter ranges on the County's comprehensive plan. 2. Scenic and Open space values. The site's LM zoning indicates a concern for scenic values along Highway 126 between Redmond and Sisters. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and testimony from neighbors surrounding the site, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space values would be impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads and fences, and fugitive dust emis- sions. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The impact of all this would generally be to cause deer to avoid this area. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife and open space values in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 .k b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-40, EFU-80 and the RR -10 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in the appropriate sections of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, and processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensi- tive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, feedlot uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. 2. The impact of dust on subdivision residents and others neighboring the surface mine. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. One area resident testified that this site was on a curve in the road that would make it dangerous for trucks to be entering and leaving the highway. 4. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. 5. Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. This could impact all uses in the RR -10 zone, except that agricultural uses could be made on the unexcavated portions of the property. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, all possible uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. Some uses are conflicting only in that they would prevent simulataneous use of the site due to reasons of space. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses, only some scattered residential uses presently occur. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 I -(P 03� Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and open space do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important factor in this case, since the site is very close to Highway 126 and would be highly visible and difficult to screen. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and would impact open space values. The social consequences of such impacts would be the reduced wildlife viewing opportunities to area residents and the negative impacts on open space values from fugitive dust. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and open space. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 ?�;21' O.3a41 Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. However, the Board also finds that it is likely that the full resource will not be excavated at the site, as the proposal is driven by needs other than excavation of the deposit for surface mining purposes, but rather is being excavated for the purpose of making a pond. Therefore, it is likely the deposit will not be fully mined. Under these facts, it would be more energy efficient to excavate other site where the full resource would be mined. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The 80,000 cubic yards available at this site makes it a relatively small site as compared to other sites in the County. Further, there was no evidence that this site is being developed as a response to the need for aggregate in the area, but rather to fit into the propo- 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 iu;-;p - 0351 nent's development plans for the balance of the property, which would be at odds with surface mining. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of open space and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggre- gate resource, wildlife resources and open space resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 12. Energy Consequences. Although in most cases the protection of an aggregate source such as this close to a major highway such as Highway 126 would have positive energy consequences, those consequences are diminished by the likelihood in this case that the entire deposit will not be mined. Therefore, whatever energy is expended to establish the site may not be as efficient if another site were -fully mined. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources Based upon the ESEE consequences identified above, the Board finds that the natural resources values at the site are relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 a. The deposit, although apparently of good quality and located on a major highway, is not a large quantity. It is unclear how much of the resource is to be made available to the aggregate market in any event since this proposal appears to be part of a larger develop- ment proposal for recreational development of adjacent properties. b. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. In particular, the Board has protected 19 million cubic yards of aggregate within ten miles of this site at sites 277, 275, 315 and 441- 443. C. Deer habitat in the County is continually shrinking in the face of new development and cannot be replaced by creation of new habitat. d. Scenic views along Highway 126 are important because of their possible effects on tourism. Therefore, Board finds that the conflicting deer habitat value and open space and scenic values should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2) the conflicting natural resource value of deer habitat and open space and scenic values should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflictina Uses 14. Because of the Board's decision on the basis of the con- flicting resource issues, the land use conflicts need not be fully analyzed. However, the Board finds that as a matter of policy, zoning for surface mining in a fully platted subdivision as part of a proposal to develop the surrounding property for recreational use does not compare with the purpose of the mineral and aggregate element of Goal 5, the purpose of which is to preserve supplies of aggregate and minerals for future community needs. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 15. The site should retain its current zoning. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #542 1. MAP 2. MEMO FROM K. CYRUS ON QUALITY & QUANTITY 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP -l. t cd o6 Comrv;tssiOnecs 8T�o�ccl 0 Comry1%S510ners C�US�O� my RLQ «-der morn p-r>F--i w 61-10-%l ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 543 Site Number 543, occupying tax lot 100 in Township 15 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 13, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 543 comprises approximately 70 acres and is located along Jordan Road east of Sisters. The site is owned by Keith Cyrus and is currently zoned EFU-40 and EFU-20. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20, SMR, EFU-40 and SM. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, an appraiser made a report of condition of the site and the surrounding area, that was entered into the record along with the staff report. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 r Testimony was also received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the owner of the site and a neighborhood resident in support of the site. The neighboring resident suggested that traffic impacts could be minimized by avoiding use of Jordan Road to the east of the site for access. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 1.1 million cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located along Jordan Road, east of Sisters. Access to Jordan Road is off Highway 20, approximately two miles east of Sisters. The area of the site is level. The site has been cleared and excavated as a dirt pit. There are a number of rocks in the bottom of the pit. The site is located in an area of vacant residential acreage and farm land. There were no improved properties noted in the immediate area of the site. There are two additional pits of similar size on the opposite sides of the road. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The Board finds that wildlife habitat conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact wildlife. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses in the zones surrounding the site are set forth in Sections 4.040 (EFU-20), 4.030 (EFU-40), 4.100 (SM) and 4.110 (SMR) of PL -15, the Deschutes County zoning ordinance. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 �) �^ 0360 The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses except utilities, feed lots, landfills, other mining, personal use landing strips, motorcycle tracks and forest products processing are con- flicting in that full protection of those uses would pre- clude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site and very few occur within the impact area. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly be able to continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. This site has no known special features that would draw sightseers to this out-of-the-way site. Therefore, economic impacts of failing to preserve the wildlife would be negligible. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. No people live in the area, so the social consequences would be minimal. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 .iJ-A - 0361. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. B. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude or limit mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preser- ving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and con- struction and finds that failure to protect sites located such as this one close to major highways would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site. The noise, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 Lig, 03;3 dust, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. There- fore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it near highway corridors would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the deer winter range resource and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and this site represents a significant supply due to the quantity and quality of the resource. At one million cubic yards, this site is among the larger aggregate sites in the County. In addition, there is a need for the aggre- gate resources near highway corridors for highway mainte- nance. Deer habitat is continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the deer and their habitat should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660- 16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the deer and their habitat. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. In any event, as this site is located in an undeveloped area, property values do not appear to be of concern. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, it is not possible to predict when such uses are likely to occur in this case, and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are non-existent in this case due to the fact that there appear to be no existing conflicting uses and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Distances to highway repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 -Y'f 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exceptions noted above, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of preclud- ing or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards or sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites highway 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 1.0 U36(3 corridors would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improve- ment of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County, the size and quality of the deposit and its location near major highways in the County. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development or occupation of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the con- flicting uses, if any. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The Board finds that there is sufficient available land in the County to accommodate displaced uses, if any. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise impacts shall be mitigated by buffering and screening; (c) The conditions set forth by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in their letter dated August, 31, 1989, identifying this site as a site meriting protec- tion of winter range values; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 d (d) Limitation on extraction to five acres at a time, with on-going incremental reclamation (subject to review and approval by DOGAMI); (e) Mining operations, including placement of processing equipment and use of trucks to extract and transport materials, shall be carried out in compliance with applicable DEQ noise and dust standards; and (f) Placement of vehicle access at a different location from the current vehicle access, consistent with a reduction of impacts on persons living on Jordan Road east of the site. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise. The Board further finds that the winter limitations on processing will offer protection for deer. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter processing limitations will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 V aid -0368 protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities, and within one-quarter mile to storage or processing facilities only if the applicant for such a use can demonstrate that the establishment of such use will not cause a future surface mine at the site to violate applicable noise and dust standards. (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet certain screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards and adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limita- tions. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 SAA 10;2, 0369 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #543 1. MAP 2. MEMO FROM K. CYRUS ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. LETTER FROM WILLIAM BOYER 8/15/89 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 7. LETTER FROM WM. BOYER 5/17/89 G«Ctrnr7r,2r�v1�- l� • rx�� � C.m m m � �SiD�� 1'k'� � � ti'�ri �n•�=r-� EXHIBIT "B" MAPS OF SM ZONING AND SURROUNDING SURFACE MINING IMPACT AREA (SMIA) (�37• � � • i Wae Tinic +•• -. : r r = . - ' +.'-��Yi�;ki s t. ,:�14 -�" ff •,�.: � •: AF x. ' l; , i ,t�;t�+t.ssi�; .fir *r~' _ :� {` � • �,• • T. M S. : •1.. 1\ 1 -ww , un-. f .' 14 1 •� �� • v wei o • 1 I : . .___•.• - � i � Well 1 �+g��� � • e uc •Q v ll• . / • 9 2 �o: SSR- . • � � 1 _.. = ll, 'aro n ssoaa 14 13 a�• DeeP.��%! i,\ L ••'�^ r ttt FEET G- •% /J • •• t : � ��� Butt / i, : � � nt Kft ' x < i< 19 24 c t 20 / 1 "+ rrllNAlfl Ga nir e •4 i _ A Gnrc1 R1 a,.oQe,N � �,..�*- ,•. � M � � f. 13 ]4 Fie. Butt ._._.Tr•]itlJ___-.—!--i / -fRY a��\,' 3200. �_� ✓ :/, \� �Y` 1980 ;' F ; I I � .I " � ••V _. ' ' � r I � I Iksert s N 23 z JI 19-r /� �� 8°♦ �� alz ca 5to2.5.-00-02SD2 1 jN. ✓'l+Yi♦? f ?E p o OA "A - to �j .S26 /.1 ZoN4 � c•-� �� ��`5 O .p i `/Yt f; r' . .�-- �` - .• +.f apt`.. r l (. _. .. ` 1 �'-. ;� }':• � ,y °,, ;:.. ' Zr� i Rp 730099 `f. 4f _ J qi - .....i' 31•t�.' ✓f a • ...t. „ z :E ire,, a.- 3 -T ♦.t t � , v ►0�\�%, =�' i-� , a `r H i4 ;- i•+ °o ♦ ����al,..�i�tfi � t \34 7 :?t tr� •fV !i % � �: � ��r 1 I,., •.i • arta .00� }` Plein ,,v; *3rrs a .•+arsr �1 + 33 4:ado � ` a730 .. . 1 r ♦ t 94 ly c:4:.:6 1 ` F 1 ) 31 32-Hall� �5 a' r 1 • ' 0 35 ,o ii JY Lr 3 • T I T T 1907 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90( 17 j.n 100 144 9 10 -S T*- 2 5' Z- 7- 00 - 0 C) --64 '70 0 100 1100 17 5 S 490 pj p Dov 5 000 2� 23 IF t 13,00, .6 116 17 3n" 137 10 V 12 1FP • 0 35 ,o ii JY Lr 3 • T I T T 1907 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90( 17 j.n 100 144 9 10 -S T*- 2 5' Z- 7- 00 - 0 C) --64 '70 0 100 1100 17 5 S 490 pj p Dov 5 000 2� 23 IF t 13,00, .6 116 17 3n" 137 AMA.r� 1. /„ I ! � 33 •i Cloverdalei^ •)xs -� 307 0 aos/ �'�.m. .F L-;AosrT. i I P,l t r RtQ 177an7, 1 1 / r w ravel P.t h !8 i0: 9 Li .� C- •t�. Z 7 _.__ Iv •1 (S•11 1-1x00. 00'10 »27 I � 1 • s • 1\ \`�\` ` .� /,' +� /ii 00 �•� � 1&/;"tea-" -- - 1 1�; i �' i! <`� .�� / :' ' .11• « �5 ;: 't° •�• - M Deep + `.. •" v ,.•:., / _ FO • � � .� •.�: - -- . w '' ,� \' � !� J� J I �\ I _ �\ Vii; n� � �= _.�'•`r� �� � •,•3,•0 �I i 3j10- /� � 21�•! �' I ;� j lig/ tl I/ \ 2 �� r�' ; � 'P, .� E. R. II E. 2730- / -- r2/ (rUMALO DAN) ♦26 •25, ♦2% •j€ .wr♦.W—• 1772 111 NW • SCALE 1.24M) 31*( ITUMALO - W NW SM. E ! 24CO) 0 kv. k# I 30719 v 0•0 YAA SCALE 1:62500 3 _ 4 MMES boon 3000—_1200D 15000 Ib A0 21000EFEET _Z_33 4 5•r40METEPS CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET r1IMLL C -ML 1.K LAKC 19 MI 4971 Z i907 000 FE •902^ N. _, 1.23 - °i • �' tW 44.15' 121.30' 619mm-E, ROAD CLASSIFICATION Heavy-duty Light-duty 1-� Medium duty Unimproved dirt ......... 10 0 3Y yo 0 y1c,�4 �0 Q V 1� 0 � a K' N i•. ` M w •1 I :1 CD 0 Q s mM y :1 • N N M co PIT sit lit CD 00 T _T—_T--r— _T ---r----_ ._ r--T.—T_— — —�— _ �__.T__T • • I 1 :1 « :1 ,. 21 . i� - � �`•�j/�j�j • ., .�1 wi) •;1 �'it »S1 w.l �:1 :1 .) 31 '1 :i 6 v «w «S >a3L3RQ7TX x �fJ 038 M o a- °) � r1 u aun •.5 O � I V � _ 1` chs �R Ob _ 1gr I f Q ^ tl .• w'$ [a�ff CD M Iii LMI�A —I -T( -A--- I a co .60 ,- Cat gi R�Z7R 01Tft 30 / ww �C4, �� i= Tam,{b 1f /35 �35 / /�% t if• �,, LRI.,� v v � /� 'iii .� •. f w ;1;117- 00 DOSOo , -00600 ! ,/ : �`' �/� :.^ r ._� •,�' - 06700 O OBOO (61.) 1 j, j i i• ' �" ` i�`'�-tel { `• y fq , �7 t, • 'et ( •'-z .} ? fl ti i �'1 J4w=�.sr.fl`wo- i AW�d 0 m F— Z O U 0 cr) 0 w F— = D 2 U w 0 • 0 -o _ 8$ o= O C, W oQ s ri- 8 �o K j ItlWii'b BE 1 R f aO �uaa F^i a.E aae_O�ap gR105S Ry!= 100 001-11-10 Odo F— Z O U 0 cr) 0 w F— = D 2 U w 0 • N Q a�ttiTp. O C, W 1`i " OM 1 �. K j ItlWii'b BE a _. isl N 11 tl �7 �5 • m M 34 v. It )�,� ; ! ! ;'� Srre ::zt 303 t2.o1- 00.00300 —�• / - �, - .'rl _: �•_ sn' '-''�M Oke,.. � � \ ' <� • __��/ ! r _ ANI: `' i �r , � ! / ;/� �•' - jam.•' J �. 1,. /a �i' �,�� — »s.: ;q .?• �.• ` } V) �� s L5 _ < 1� q r chi 1.. i x`11 • / ! ?r r .' itQi I -- -v-.tee•» '.:. _ -. 1 i rrl � L i - :s 1 . Y � � c.w i • ri ,• IF � .:..}... 1` \� --.moi••' Vi`. \.�/ � ' � a WA �iel '(P• �^. TE It 3Dy {e•/ t _ 1-1 I�.Ofc •DO- 003oo •� . - 00301 00 3 O :. ,._((142 4- .tM ix ; I y1 . ., .. , , � o� 'fit � - ` � ..� .� �`•� Jnl r: _ y" S c .: F 3 5 r� `� 20(o Cm 0 1-1 I ' O too �3535F.. s � . '1� � �.� . � ,►-' .. � ; � ., '• : � „ : Vit. - %� Al P� 160 LL ` 1 . at J• .rte 1 .. , ��� � �-- .% t 3 ��'y � i arA of ;. A yf -� - .... :. ,� �, ,-� ,�y- 0 �� '•i/. �. -,1• yaa• /'� • -.u• • .•.} yt'^ � Y'. I�llir_ t wr - i%+� �,:�'/'Yr%��: �,!•il,�"..�I`�� � 'ter•', J��1' •: � � r � � �s i 1"j�, '! S" f tlrI �,i lf'.• {�•�� -_y' .i �s •� i ? !'y±i•, �.�R y s • �� s : i. ,s '{SFrY• Y1�37T 1 . _ {� J � i `••- ,j���1' ''�L� a � tel• I `�iC` I: �•�: �• . _ •t •t,r•i d'' �S 1 tt : q'wZ/a;jy i r �•{t'}2�� , ' 'y�� ' -- O� . ,int :..a�t.r�. I 21 6160 T, Black it 15 og nd Glaze ------- -- BN 3246 J..?, 0 2r, I x 33 ntj V4 + 3192 S: t 8 .......... + t I ... ci 6 IT 114' 13? 130 Mot o0co a p 000t v: N CL t4 Ub 16 1.00 b . i L4 • bi CL too 00 IL Na V C*j cu 0 0 AL IL go WL a ef. 4L 2 21 b) ON toiM t is IL e e to w jkmmmb" ts, cli cbfs+ � 14—� 3r► $ � ' »� n^i � �� -! �• � f; •= 4+� t• « '� ^� e5'ti 3 •j R—S N»� 1 !�.' .—� I .»s 130 Mot o0co a p 000t v: N 03A 13 r 03 FOIlette 17 0-1 U, te STRIP mit4E Tp.` A. ------ ----- e 71 r 10 24 19 21 -5 ITE # 32-A+ + Cpnr4 �6 eeP,25f IP qc ?goo— o C, • I'llp I or Vol .1w X.0 P300 'n �' 18_ Terrebontle Ic- NJ• 7FG4 � � � � 3 IS ♦ � '/ lu*e - �ti ` :.r '2 Sn.�r.. accw :-... ae,. — } ail ,-3s�'•.` �' .: _� lsae � \i t mmos• mss. i f' �..� c i �`. •, ,-. - FM1�11N 330=. . 2t L...... . �', i;i• �.' 4 • Mai • is --- :�� �Q ion rint 2922 to J - :-i- RM �»- a o• : :. •• : ,,.° , z p.. A r • J 1 t, ae.«� } a / j 1 - . 1 •stn t HosWtal I• ,p,��.`., ' •a k ATO, .^ � 1�� \` i�.- } � t � /I' :� `.. � �� a l �•' I � � \J.pi`_•`+ - �` nn 1 :w 3� DGICAL SL)Rvr-_v 10000- E. a12E +.i3E _ t•� . ___1 _ �'L 3 7 O J ata r . ar .. IL ALI— r. a , ayA• I�.frf ,�� . 'y r' .fid .���. pi i �r ` r 17ae' \ _ fr• a °. �- i Jd -'� ��rt 2� lad• (' f' j S• _`�-w , ♦ i, f /`_ y LATERAL ♦ Y. WOSOta .. •p. �i( j,,�, l Q�Pft'. X' L.• � O O _ r iTJ\ % d 0 l� - R , r3x _ std ' �• pol 3 f asT41: .,.�` "Tts� t � ,v� O: i - t l♦ i�-�� � � 11�, r i S$1 , r `'i»o y7 } i J T`*_-,'~' �� _,\ tiler. ♦ _ �rvi Zoh= ♦ aIs \\ ,4 ,. U. 28 ` ... �� •}�-.©� 2- i • �t, *� J� 4 , x .L..4 N�� � _5 I4Q � `J l -t ! � .. f o tls� 4. � 1. ♦ .�:�, � K �..y /•�• e �k-6. �.• h-4 /-'' - ' o •• i� Junctia �'�—.�'// •�\\ `;it 7lf? l� /: i.- ; / •r+^ -%•f,`.. t�-.1 : �' tr pO ,pix 7ieli-���� D/ :♦\ _ ry ♦ / C ; Y� -,•t�. � , ,�� •_ Vii, � .•� i. `�@ � �.� � .�� . /25 991 �Xw 77 cr— z 298W3 IFIlm 11111R, j�jjjf,, 4F e Kk M '1 A2 -- a 3 b, ( ri LU 0 ri 03 0 CO 0 0 i—z 0 !iE 10 2 13 •2 0 A 0 .—C'T 0 0 ta 0 N WN us 0. 0 0 10 0 s O3 a 2 0 0 C> - 2 o 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 1-0 IF cli 0 0 • 00: 1. 0_3 r 10 0 I �- I0 0 -2 CD to C\j 1 0 T --�-F O O � - � O C, cli OR Z, I 0 0 0 OD T T T T T T T T T 00 Opo co:, c c c ; I � f � id N ^� C? C, �" U J .j O O O v MZ.. « 11 F mW *SS O_ I A 0 . ' ' o , C I W O N I (� 0400 t �� Y • t I • S �h+T+.+++•s. ..�� _ I MARK ► RO • +. ------- .- 2p / I ,� s 25 I `. ►...` a/�) .{_ .• •26 - J. 1 26— .......•. I.......:. -.. PINE --- ROAD f'„..� . '•'•" +`JJSJ -4-- 3C t.1D < s .. r'0T . /' ,p•- �. �, Y - - xs< / :/ / / • )us P LENURSy ROAD a � / �\�`` IJ I yJ7r9 /� ' C \ j I Jdlaw gut 1 • �(( / �� pm ` 3 i , / 1 351 Y - nMutO `R[dLRVO>R .O % ROeO T LO a' IA O' JNr R•ES6R. •'' ; � / �t � �j/L/. Laaao_ • �•' B/TUNDARY `•� .1 �`\ \ I \ `� \ i it / .ado \� ( /i . - �'• �\`l w � f J .� -. 1 �a 1—A\ M,9 ST "4� _ 121`22'30" i t}mR ` I -t COUCH /MA1 Kin • • O _ ♦ _..ice. _.. �i ��T.� MI RK[i RD • , .�1 • \ ` / •_ 11! !b� s • • .S I -r E zf3. 36'16 8 .< `_ ?t -26 I-26 .....sm R � sm = moi ✓ ............... nl\MV x3249 • aus i VASM .- . it / I a ^tR.vw r 35 1 �.. ) 35 n -~ 6 � �• �;;•, r� � J o 1 tiro , Pic ; �.r. / : 1 • r • 4 t �ao �7us v►cacwvaR o Rtscpvwm u' Y ' ` 1rnBM 7771 ' ,- �•� .•'i \ 1Rb --� % AfAt •-` ,� c �... — 7.00,_ • y1 i• \ _ V ♦ � (-� � \ r - ~--\l s q • BOUNDARY2 v� /J \ -i;"` l� • / 1/ 1 6 .�Q • o �k] 0402 w.. ; I 7UMAL0 l 23`� COUCH 10' euR.l[r Roy % �� �`-\ ) I ` an -�- g� ; ! Ib I 1 1tt -•� t ;% j I ...._ ._ �% SITE 3Sl - Jt�EP r »91 25 (b 1136 • D0- i _ P/NENUR37 • D ))1) V O • O C� • I DLlDo j4rj.) ES « ....... / ! .1 •�•��« /r m1Y y Gr��`J J i r �� • �%+- '•90 P NURST•ROID. P. 'G ��Y' '•` .• W o Uwe" � r � r� �. Tumalo '\ O fit �•, I' b.-18« 31821 • -0.- '�'+ C' * • `.� ei Pit 1 •.�; r 351 2 '<-�-moo -.. v-�•�, 1 : • a ` // Pit xl �)wt /, •: tC �;/ �r y- o t - ; �Pc i T. 17 S. - - I ,• - {�. VASKI 1371 .. t �! 1 C_. + •' l 1 A.� 900 000 FEET \� - U —31 uo t1�t eSTA* PAR —/ s- II 121 22'30•' ` 91 — R !I E— — 1 EC; Or, 1 E! ! t 17 E .r0• ec o s w rBENC °?6 p Mapp=j, edited, an F.ublishe': l a�r,►a sr..r 1 F 1 . ; ' / Mllc '•' ' 6 / • � �15V -' \ / 157 2 i SUP wmorrc"•a►t wo use . Glave) Plt ' .: 7 � } �a �, �a fit',.-. . - ... _ ..:.'' •'. ..mss . y tn. _. `� � I rcreosom I'• no I 17 18 '' x Vit. I 3103 '• J 2� / - i--�. 14;; o S B4 OU7ME N 31.0 C O - O Z 8 pp 974 I �1 ✓ 300 _ \ f Mia 1 21 1ss i fi X20 3»• 22 { {�� \ ��\; i? 71 ong Butteo =y VASMG3569 i I� 3 2'. 1 :ik I x ok t x 140 `\ 10, I jz•� r i r t'\ aa3o sat \ '<'rUMAL0aE ca eM3275 - eM 28 Art 7 i Dest:hnt s /• 307 32 -St 1 �v J 1 ; O �'319s i : �. BM 3M1 26 aa. a•91 It It It 1..1 ` I • ', +.TC �1 1 ` f \ _3zs 0M 3273 •r' qn, lalo _ �' I� •`.� <� ec. / f1 ' P?° :� 'ago \� 32 opj i1/ t g °i 33 o� 34 Q+, 12 / MARKET ML I / ROAD �I - �\ J R$H ROAD • \ 1 ' am 3140 \ X18 am 171 • .�. .BROWN I • au7 • ( I ROK -.l • `�"\ ' i�.., -_•,�.� _ (- .._.._._. .+1 �� • �1 / • ROA '- 'O O CONMAROV Id It oAvroN 24 aOo'. u 21 n --- -L-- ' "'� M `'Mite 20 3300 It / � .• _ =;79x _ $ �T� t� 3!010 _ - �- ��✓ / t(o1230-00-�ooc� - J i 01 of • I � \ , • sa 25 I r - INEHUR$TI ROAD 11 BM , ��BM 28 / -- �J313 SCH E$ HIGH NUY _ ..:.:.: 7753 ) :q 0� __._-_ 3275 + --�_ _\ vej Pic •. - �_ ,. _ _� - o .:..... �� \ \•\ I``I - /mit/ J V . - . . • / � , / v \�����\\\\� \ � Y�219 Gra IY ' , %�� � � I I `� • 7300,,,ti •l`� 1 VABU 1 C dRY Tumalo O i Pit / I , .. - -;r (BM 31821 313 ��' �� i/�• (�Ic % ♦'�e Pit —J I ti /r �'i �;\ Pim -/1 � Croda � �/�/ t � ar' � . /,/ .. C (" ,�n �� • -- " -O `� _ l d � �'�3 Citi V /- ,J a2 t P = J a r 0 4 0 %'1 -'Z V-1 - 7 -rE #3(.8 0 0 ?-a 7- avi e - Er «33769 JIM 4b rIMNE ...... ... . lim-fts 28 NO Pit n 0 A 111210 u 1,4 L cr 3S OM 330 VA 337. U 4 0 E) 0 0 _ 2 � I rR h 1 I i 48~ O < QX i Id_ Qq Q N 2i •+p � CZ~ p A' Y�y JElcn W Wy�j J KU U �•WW N $ :01O R O W W __w R OJJ j UOZ WQ _O< O U 4 0 E) 0 0 _ 2 � p_ �O < ~ O W «Ct O b� < N U 2O < O Z U O W <z Z = W I O t: >: 3W W J N d E < 00 aO� 0' < F O N W � m ' cc to Of S(TE tt 310 0 L z:: Tvzz �/ I � - � �' Cil � � .l • � S -22 J •� --� t x t F6 t��� _� m E C ovov .1 �... �. �,; •b I q, \ c `11 \�. y' o o i �i _ s u N �� �. � 1 �i D � i vo .iF .22'? 1.0 { rR za au z 48~ O < QX i N1�0 J Qq Q N 2i •+p � CZ~ p A' Y�y W Wy�j J KU U �•WW N $ :01O R O W W __w R OJJ j UOZ WQ _O< O 2 W OZ � o p_ �O < ~ O W «Ct O b� < N U 2O < O Z U O W <z Z = W I O t: >: 3W W J N d E < 00 aO� 0' < F O N W � m ' cc to Of S(TE tt 310 0 L z:: Tvzz �/ I � - � �' Cil � � .l • � S -22 J •� --� t x t F6 t��� _� m E C ovov .1 �... �. �,; •b I q, \ c `11 \�. y' o o i �i _ s u N �� �. � 1 �i D � i vo .iF .22'? 1.0 { Q � b 5j � o lZ S8 —� ( 1 1 w z � _ ry ] , C W - - - p Li W W f N m 3 -- A N = � ---r --�-- ', , �1 -� i ~i•, e� - 0 H e ..-+ { "� «S 11 n� 1 mi 1 '1 o $ '� •i I a. Y � a a 1 t �j f g a ." - 1 i l z -_'!: 3 N g -1 � -i �"-a 1 �t i •a � �, W " f v a a 4 N ---� co ti o 8 � •� � I I , ( _ 76 X � I { "—.T_.T—_�—...,.....r^—.T _�,..:^T--�^ �..+. -Tom►—`i--' � ( s t a( ( • ( s) si s - 1 •I s1 • `1 •• i• `' • 1 t s � •- 01 •1 •M ••S 1t 71'19 U•1111 f O 000♦ MO's 0.01 OQOp1 tt ?iY^S d s 0 0407 SS A7h M•yN 61 W W L. W W a t Q W /! ID s 3 N 3 N � n H2 • W N Q N •• W - - - p Li W W f N m 3 -- A N = � ---r --�-- ', , �1 -� i ~i•, e� - 0 H e ..-+ { "� «S 11 n� 1 mi 1 '1 o $ '� •i I a. Y � a a 1 t �j f g a ." - 1 i l z -_'!: 3 N g -1 � -i �"-a 1 �t i •a � �, W " f v a a 4 N ---� co ti o 8 � •� � I I , ( _ 76 X � I { "—.T_.T—_�—...,.....r^—.T _�,..:^T--�^ �..+. -Tom►—`i--' � ( s t a( ( • ( s) si s - 1 •I s1 • `1 •• i• `' • 1 t s � •- 01 •1 •M ••S 1t 71'19 U•1111 f O 000♦ MO's 0.01 OQOp1 tt ?iY^S goof' 1z - ---------- 40 SITE '381 29 t 11 2-S - C-0 - 12600 Is it 2,6- Do - 0(600 SPA zome� NP-CIPSUMM-k/ Wpl n L FILE 081 `V LOCATION: This site is'locatoa4 off.the'end'of Cinder Butte ....X. Drive in Deschutes River Woods, south- of Bend, in Township 18,. Range 11, Sections'25 and 26,7 Tax Lots 1600 and 12600. Access onto the site is directly off the end of -the road. PRESENT ZONING: , S# -SURFACE 'MINING. ADJACENT ZONING: RIZ 10, SM, AND IX r. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: SURFACE -MINING, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT. SIZE: 50 ACRES OWNERSHIP: PIERATT'BROS, INC.-• .-. RESOURCE TxP9..i.'-.CINDERS; QUAI.ITY'.1S GOOD, 56;00.0 CUBIC YARDS., HEARING DATE:'-- August 1989 HEARING Tlmt:-- -6:30 P.M.% - - -stration Building HEARING PLACE: County.Admini Hearings Room '1130 NN..Harriinan Street BEND OREGON 97701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ek­­ 9 -P" - e.h NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENTOROR SELLER ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER_ F -,S ITelt -391 ISIZZI-00-00zoo SM Zow►e. , I+e 3 `I 2 0411 40 1 r ;� � �' � � s� �s � . -.. _ , - � r..Z:. . _ 'r'am,�.r��1.. _ . IILL �_ ► - ® AI s ��� I� a � ��, � a.+r '"z,�f •tilt'�,ad^•'!r" i - .rj. �� 4 `moi •�;•. •, rr.' � !,1 �/ ` ��• .4 -fir ,� ` -e �•1f`�•."� .,a^ elt Av � :'.:.,•.�:^''• �i �.t.. .•arc .. `- � , .... � j A.}4;,,r-_;�� .•,.* <, : � •�; ... 'vim_ �'"• ; r,� ' , r tea. w s � � t „ �+s � � �, f�.�� .a ,b -• � : + lr..' -dam �- . . '•i.•j y.• -•r T� ®..nom!. o.a+f••,+ x�. 11 Ir- v �yi LJ C�_CrED 9Y 7� �, , / �YGIr►J� APPROVED ,. CENTWEF SURREY^6Y SCALE �i/� w ♦OATE st ENglNEERifVCj GRAOi'7� BY D'r`;G. h0. t o o.tIJ' 04 o- M N o y- � o 0 ti aC N � Cl 91 eon t•s f - e O : S Q Q CL a N N WN W LLrW WUl N W N U) 8 I R • a (`� a ro N CL a I� , ,r, M W WLU N N I �.I a a °- a I _. M 'I+ Q an N W c • UJB •-- W Wtil W 4 N o N a Y 3. Q I ♦' N I' = . * N (1VAN N3N3dK "� a Q N 062 W m dVw 21 61 335 • \ p' r• �� d3— ,son W W • W m D62 N dvn Z) 61 0 33S Q . pM ,.p W r" U) N sa O _ N b ?'•NW ►tM I�TJ _ � Q qg O • r ♦p OD •' �' } tuui _ul OD , � �� •� i W tG W W s1; 5 Sob- ` II N M 606 - •••_ • ; i�piilei+ ''p )19 E9 � • - 0004 0 ,w, C OOi _ - :�:� . •••�� J•'� - <''.� fib. �.-••��p�� / A - - - '. ss°_- _--a`/ �lf /' j'�r - �\� /• i_ -i' -- tjl('--_ 4. � 7'_ f'�sas�-1 '•f :� ': f Wit„' i ,� 1 1 ,ll •• Go 25 29 W. Y :1 ' tame:•- ,:.;.. t.' .. :: ..yr.: -. r ^� • tit` '. :-ice .�jb 7�i _ , ��. •:`• � 4Wllit '� - �'e :7r k :_� '�. i;••~'�-1,`.�'.��.•- �Z�"Y�. •.� �".•.1�'== ti��=:�;.. iti. ;� -- � - � i r •i �- � . „ .;.w �+ •ais e i � • �. SY '�...,,. _._tis i,.. -.,l• .7F'• ",=i . _ �• � - -'wti -.1• ,'3.. a•.:• 't:'• 1!') �+,:• :•,l%! .z_-•:� SIC•'. ��. • �t a`.'•y�' =5. Ir Si•-�•:�r. • . car !-�':�•:� . y ^= "��•' - ;�,�•'• _ •� � . • 1:.. �•r`-`• �A' ;fit:_ .. --.ri<:= �•.. ",S'�' _ .;.' - i 24Mi -Z• �� :. 7. = Vii' � i 1 :� � t •'�'- �. a�-, a_t`.-. .• i --� _ r FILE #395 , LOCATION: This site located jest east of South Highway #97 at the Weigh Station south of in•Towns 18; Range 12, o Section 30, . Tax Lot 4300.: PREMM ZONING: SM -SURFACE kfKING -• ADJACENT ZONING:- RR -10, SMR; L� F2; AND iM OoM piMNSIVE PLAN: SURFACE 2QNINa RESERVE, FOREST, SURFACE "�- �' MINING, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND -LANDSCAPE MANAGF.Kf3NT. 22 ACRES - -,"`• • 'ORNSRSjMP: -STATE-OF ORLON._-- _ RESOURCE `.l.x . t:CINDERS,''�QBALZTY ZS 'GOOD, 100, 000 CUBIC s. Y. •� - i; �. n: t. s ars Ar 146�- HEARING -OATS' `..` August=70; 1.989 HEARIN6-171W:` - 6:30 04M. = • r" -HEARING PLACE:' . -.County.Administmtion' Building* ' x Viz; - Hearings Roots , e - .i- `;=' 1130 N.W. Harriman Street -BEND; OREGON • 97701 -:�•-, � - - SNP."" til ...o /. ---- -- ''-. IA.•• - 1 " ••�• Vii', n.� ..f•':1 1 i �1�. � - • 1 a ��-•y;. i "1 NOTICE.TO MORTGAGEE,-LIENHOLDER, VENDOROR SELLER ORS CHAPTER --215 REQUIRES THAT LF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED -TO THE PURCHASER- �P S 1�•—H 3�iS ,SM. Z csv�Q� o M i 9 041 T f at 22 FILE 9404 LOCATION: This site-is located in Township 19, Range 14, Section 2, Tax Lot 200. Access. to the area is along a dirt ltd road which•leaves_the highway at the base of the Horse Ridge grade. The site is X!bughly/one.ails NE of the highway. PRESENT ZOKTG: SH, AND VA. ADJl d=T Z01I M: EFU 320, iQ1 PLIN: aMCIILA'D1�S.A= vnmu E AREA. Co�IIIG. SIEB: 200 ACRES . r - D ONNSRSHXP: 21 -0 1 AND GLORIA IMM - RESOURCE TYPE: AGGREGMM, -QUALITY LETS ODOT SPECIFICATIONS, QMMTITY IS 193,000 CUBIC YARDS. -- _...._ .. t. . HEARING DATE: August. 7•t 1989 o HEARING TIME: - 6:30 P.M. s 9 1 HEARING PLACE: County Administration Building Hearings Room . IT30 N.W.Aarriman Street BEND, OREGON' 97701 • �� -- T 20 i 21 a22 Z34 S . i lea - J 29 20 27 26 / O c a (O ' S I?E. a(V'. y � - R 15 E - 596QO R s by s s If 3i• �� 4 F kArj ruwe8� ��1� �%�'♦ �� 4�; aid_. • /J'4 '�� ��! 7 ♦ ' J • 4 �a :.... � 09 •tali :_� �� �?� i"'�. _ f " • \\ f. :� ,,4 NORSE .vi' 'J�<, \ : v �� ♦ r ' 17R1pGE - µ '�♦ 4 ?� - NATURAL p ';� @♦ � ''�{_• y.`c=2�c = �i � �`4s• - ,� Q/ � 17 ♦ s �W«f�' AREA 4 6 ' 4+ ", � t ? '• '� � �� 2D :' 21 22 24 �1� s�,. S�- ��� ♦ o ? moreft w����� it'; � �1 '�d ��� iV.� '•y .•af F 19 OIdq R1 qQ Coyyote �- 1 .,�� - p ; +.., �•., •�� ♦ ��/, /►'s/! �, Golden �� 4� '"; ♦ N w _ � �� sin �- ( � -f, b = :4. •�� ;� `:� �`; � '� 1 �. :,.• �p � � � ` 28 �• _r' ,..: �� +i!; ccccccc����iiii c-s� J 29 NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIE MOLDER, VFNDOROR SELLER 32 ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE 'THIS NOTICE, \ sz 33 IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCIIASER � � � _ Ji % D 7, -. / // - A- Udo f OA O 1 0 s O D r O o I' t _IT ` R - - y{ a , Q I -- ON « _ � N M rQ + Iw1 i p . Z _O •. N N w 1 s _ •- K ---! to _CD w I 1 "•st mss., w -:L«=� w;A �� «: - `�S -:1 ~ gwS� •i -tet «� w�� �: - w�l w�; ,�i O N�O� 9 ♦ it4 wwK v G�• N - n • r� or �cl H* °.M I "—'—� SEE MAP .i.. 3 18 16 32 . 1 7 I• Z 1 I 3 I Z 1 --J.--1-700 —1--i---i--70C 5 III ° 1 ' I 1 , 1 I I :1 t 1 4 41 I i 33 SEE MAP 4 SEE MAP 9 1000 4 1 -n00 p01)•, t.`• iu00' — 106 •I I woo /•.«7— INA f 35 i' 24 SITE pp *Lq o,J l9l(000•oo ui 16 15 jl y' ~4,. .... ,. . ,si, i X",. ,i.1 .- I too - 1 1 I :1 ? 3 '.4 19 20 21 f22 Mq � • I I I -IV'cr, _ 1 30 —3Q0+ 29. 28 f 7 ;• �l f i H* °.M I "—'—� SEE MAP .i.. 3 18 16 32 . 1 7 I• Z 1 I 3 I Z 1 --J.--1-700 —1--i---i--70C 5 III ° 1 ' I 1 , 1 I I :1 t 1 4 41 I i 33 SEE MAP 4 SEE MAP 9 1000 4 1 -n00 p01)•, t.`• iu00' — 106 •I I woo /•.«7— INA f 35 i' 24 SITE pp *Lq o,J l9l(000•oo ui 15-11 •..:.—R� �t60I n •.. 'IiBJ �..• , � ,•.••• 1 — • @ori 1,.., ... 19 I 20 21 I 221 23 �---� --24-- — - 3 12 13 ( •oo ,.:... uobl ,..... Izo3�.7 — 3..,..�,Tn) 1 ,1QCO]. , ----I 30 I �� I 28 r, , 26 , i LAC) , 1 it ,. I ,.Z1. 1 ♦ir• .... ,. . ,si, i X",. ,i.1 .- • :1 ? 3 3 --1206e, 1200 'fi�7:�c —3Q0+ 7 —1160 ;• �l f i (5� 14 I col 3 15-11 •..:.—R� �t60I n •.. 'IiBJ �..• , � ,•.••• 1 — • @ori 1,.., ... 19 I 20 21 I 221 23 �---� --24-- — - 3 12 13 ( •oo ,.:... uobl ,..... Izo3�.7 — 3..,..�,Tn) 1 ,1QCO]. , ----I 30 I �� I 28 r, , 26 , i LAC) , n7 I L L I C A tab. N MORTGAGEE, NOTICE TO M LEENHOIDER, VEKDOROR SELLER ORS cuArrm 215 munm THAT IF you RHMWE - Tffls NOTICE, ri ff mUSr ]PROMPILY. BE FORWARDED To THE PURCOASEL CIL oe A /- .,C 4 d1l, V. loo, 0J. F I 100- 6, 1, 1 r I ;i— fill �- . -N. -. . --� —c Old fe IAA .J - FILE f413 .:a ZDCATION: These two sites are locatespart way up the base of Pine Mountain, in Township_ "20, 'Range 15, Section 16, Tax Lot 1400. Access to the sites is along an unimproved dirt road. There is no direct j: ay of getting to the. sites.' The nearest maintained road a 5 zLUd drive to get over to the Pine Mountain Road. PRESENT ZONING:-. SMR, AND V& ADJACENT r2, ZFU 320, WA COMPREHENSIVE MACE MINING "Zintn, VILDrZFE -AEA COMBINING, - FVW=. SIZE: 35 ACRES OWNERSHIP: . DESCHUTES. COUM . RESOURCE TYPE: AGGREGATE,- QUALITY MEETS. ODOT 'SPECIFICATIONS, QUANTITY IS 30,000 CUbIC-:YARDS.- HEARING.DATE: August: 8 1989 HEARING TIME: 6:30 P.M-* - 7k 1 HEARING PLACE: County Administration Building Hearings kooii 11.30'N.W, Harriman Street BEND, OREGON97701 C TE 7 �31 35 �Ai iNill 100- 6, 1, 1 r I ;i— fill �- . -N. -. . --� —c Old fe IAA .J - FILE f413 .:a ZDCATION: These two sites are locatespart way up the base of Pine Mountain, in Township_ "20, 'Range 15, Section 16, Tax Lot 1400. Access to the sites is along an unimproved dirt road. There is no direct j: ay of getting to the. sites.' The nearest maintained road a 5 zLUd drive to get over to the Pine Mountain Road. PRESENT ZONING:-. SMR, AND V& ADJACENT r2, ZFU 320, WA COMPREHENSIVE MACE MINING "Zintn, VILDrZFE -AEA COMBINING, - FVW=. SIZE: 35 ACRES OWNERSHIP: . DESCHUTES. COUM . RESOURCE TYPE: AGGREGATE,- QUALITY MEETS. ODOT 'SPECIFICATIONS, QUANTITY IS 30,000 CUbIC-:YARDS.- HEARING.DATE: August: 8 1989 HEARING TIME: 6:30 P.M-* - 7k 1 HEARING PLACE: County Administration Building Hearings kooii 11.30'N.W, Harriman Street BEND, OREGON97701 C TE 7 v L :L I C A NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, UUMOLDER, VENDOROR SELLER ()RS CI Arm 2iS MUM THAT IF YOU RBCWK IMS N(MCF, ff MUST pRommy.sK . yoRwARDiD Yo mc ruRcffASEL WM 9 MZ4414 LOCATION: This site- is 'located part way up the. base,- of.' Pine Mountain, in Township 20,z -Rai e 15, Section" 16, -'Tax Lot 1500. PRESENT ZONING: SHR, . AM VA ADJACENT ZOWNG: F2, kFU 320��VA - WIVE . PLAN: AGRICULTURE,. SURFAPE - KnUNG RESERVE, WiLD-LIFT AREA COMBINING, FOREST_. SM: PART OF THE 35 *ACRES ]:DMMF= IN SITE NqMBER 4131, OWUMSECEP: - DESCHUTES COMM RESOURCE -TM: AbGRW,.=,_. 6MUML;Y MEETS.ODOT SPECIFICATIONS, QUANTITY IS 30,000 CUBIC YARDS..' HEARING DOE: Augiist 8-*, 1989 HEARING TIME. 6:30 -P-M-. - HEARING PLACE-.- County Adiinistration Building Hearings Room :1.130 N.W..Harriman Street BEND, OREGON 97701 ............ 7S��I—e 6 \-V ro- j 0 . c` Iry u\.G v ..... �..,�.-..� .-•. -- --- , _ ORS CHAM R 215 REQUIRES TEiAT [F YOU RECEIVE TMS N(MCF, i rr MUST PROMPTLY. BE FORWARDED TO TUE PURCE[ASfM- '^ 041.2- 1 41- ON- Ll L41 `11-r � q161,119 1(c-Oo- 00100, ♦�� -. �_ 2 '� a T _ �.•• -' 01000/ Ot3oo J I 1- -- = - -- _ • LOcArs — - J ( ` 14 it PU 4415-414 . j 1 LOC&TI011: at �group..of 'tide scall sites vhicb r1=1 along the 'north' side -Of Highway- 20 _East, in Township- 20, ! �__• r I Range 170 Section 3L6* 'TAX Lot 700- The site are located = -) roughly 1.5 ailaq Oast Of the-R400t& 427, - the Prineville { - / cutoff at Nile aarxer Tis. - ' j - 23 . - PRESENT Z0KM:S![ AND �. ADSACE T-, ZOKMG: -EM 33220 _ . •- _ i • F COKPRSHEMSIVE PLAk-- 1►GRICQ].TVRE, SQRFACE MINING, ANO' ; j LMTDSCAM lD MMMENT. - SSSS: - 10 ACRES QppliTy. --,e-•�- RESOQI TZPE AGGREGATE, QQALT,TY MEETS ODOT SPECIFICATIONS, V Qnkrm 30,000 CftlC i HEARING•DATE: = August .8 , 1989 ; HEARING TIME: 6:30•P_N. 26' HEARING' PLACE: County Adm ni stration Building 9 Hearings Room 1130 N-W. Harriman Street ' ` '' BEND, OREGON 97701 ' Ll , OLi OZ aow •>5 r►! v O r m I� — — o _---� --.— o i I 1° II II II � II II r----�----fir a I� I Ion I IT 3� � I II II i I it L----JL_----J II f N lo -----1r------ I" IIc I II I II � II I, to i �II cn Q _ w r I 2 _J L ----J m I o A I �/� O tp J Q :r O ° g � I � p II m jo Ila I =i0 8 I OSI m b Ll , Q 0 N 0 L C3 j. oz ecw .•S old Q+-- O ----� I FOO -- -IIN II F8 I� lion I r 0 1 II II �o-----Flo------ I" I I I 0 H II I II � II IP 10 i . II LoII I �I 0 In I r � II WWOO I o m I o I 0 � I Im 2 O✓ II II m O II -�. to r � 18 - I -p�l m �O w i1 oz aon +•s w 0 4 r. as t r � N � N \1 H I- I A l'N'D rC/Jtl:) y I,I 3n 01 IN i O 00 Cyr &Z, '-0000% 0008t, 11 3i 03 C4 ? 04�` .� N S o - —- - N M + N LO- ns O � «� � � .s �-" •}s � o M � tD rte►• tl7 _ N� 0 -t tt o s o N W�o r ( p I O O O LLJ t 1 fit M -- VtD N o •+ 8 g-� 117CD .R } N i. O i0 • J O O `O O O « .. i S A d p O Q TX• ► n. _ O d O ii O W W W WA W= ~ 3 w- - j O e O `• - Ns' w to tV T--T-- • NN• N « 8-; 1 I «2 ��' .O ul y I,I 3n 01 IN i O 00 Cyr &Z, '-0000% 0008t, 11 3i 03 . U 4 !_ � o CK �� o o-x i I 0202 S p g o 8 I'I p 0 O ¢ O 0 0 LOM ►O to �_� U� o. tt� o_ �$ I CD rte► jjj M O o tt� N } M k n�' I 0e T , N co M I OLO n 8 • coE NLLI �o W- yW/ N • qQ Nw c— « l ��� g • g o0 � t o p M aa uu 7g O N t �'1 ^= •1 • F, 'y N O -_ �X, -XI f p_ A , ♦� @-� S r I.} ; ._ -� w. ' n� �f i r t iz --n -S W33 3n odor oaoa .! Coogt i1 TWOS 0 4 8 5 ID -Z - 4z q 4 B '335 12 Ind' round 39 sm 3246 IX Ak. I rE 0- L4 Li gyp , a '�� f �'� 150`j00.00.00100 SAA Z Ono Pi 3 36 31 C, m Co N, 3 B 126 B 1021E 22 + sm 32636, 6 5 URI Pi rs 17\ troutf�eeC Creek . H1. 6(11 1680000 FFFT fqniilWv ck 111 ) 11#7 — S is 4 - --------- Rlack Buttd rd mund 3246 am 3228 28 '30 4r L( Fo, L500100 -OC>. 004C>o 31 0 am Coil 3 4 IF - IZ --)l Snn Zone 3 w M ............ 1--- 1-. NO, 2 24 C7 w 9 14 0 rest CA ' '�-vut Cre Out rou a /* Yout Cre H c 6M 1 646(w FFiT Knill— It li I IIIIMMFIIW� 47/3 Black Butte am 12 zm A A 13 .18 �AT� rou BM 3246syN 2 BM 3228 '30 0114 32 -�N 3 • 3 36 31 �, ' • Fdo,.rI < CD 7 7 7 22 M 3324 3 4.13 ao. 2 n, 5' L4 L4 3 sol ff .-• =J ol Do oo- 0C)GOC) F z s Aok- k sm 0!3 . ........... ......... . 24 •V - x/' `. 1 _I Lt Cre tfC4.ek IItt i"t EM7.Ip �,77- 7 O�s .000 ..... . . . . . . . '7 cl. 13 18 /X rr Hit 00.00 • 05 2-00 DIP, Cf -LA - 40 > S rj fCf4 -A 306S 31*0 3140 16 I -W i _Iris � W[. .+ �Me �R -bald I iia , o 1ti Follette utte ee Q 19 v' SV)__20 I I 043 1 9 �� rr. ' ` Steamboat Rock .00 I ; )>Mile am idR I, •� BM ?559 p Strip Mrae I t •``_.,• wa CHO I STRIP MINE �:�. �•a+ I l I 2647 r SATE # `q o j tZOO ..UO-DISO1 t, Q� 1600 + SM ZtV�e I f \y 27]O 27 LN- PIAM, m 11to A - - - - - - - - - - - - v 0 4 3) 77� I P6 2�. ....... 22 Ito If ..Af Jew 141333.0o - oo(oco del 'Zone It" It M2 6 Pit& 7ff, . ..... or tX I 2977 od ID 0 rn- I 0 4 • ' sod ICY J cy .... .•s ••Y• • ' .1100 • .- • •f•( . - ' i - J` _�/� Ile • ; — J --- —+ +----t.---- 10M , ' -, / ', �� S ITS• � 469 I• �/ . ? ��1131•CD o(Dloo Y I I 36 WSW T 6 ICH 33 r. i j•jq ,SMR- ss�x �7 o • 7 . .I >-` •'• los :� \ aeSS - I • ----- \ i ; ;. 14 1 -s.4. r - - - • (� I well � • it, I - • BM I �n • • • :- — i IOSf � X1077 ' — •( .30" 3093 3071.K o w • i I . ,`1 i•. I A a AL�03 �043bD I Zi C, -. -S 0 4 3 Y -14 i o z - p4 " 18 Mali z cc 41 paL �z 40 U. ,X 0 Cm IL -C Y <CC 'c C% > ;U <V cli Q)0. a Z oz C4 id I !? P w w I.- %Ilr�l —Z = •d Iic > z x TtF :01 C., 0 M> Zzo z 00 tC)o F O W 00 WIS.Cz 0 i 4L 0 0 -piX 0, z 000j 3300 1 00 S(A Ivr\Q, b N 4 4L rL 3 14 5 3360 v 0 ble Of 2 x 0 1 � , Q / � /, � \� .� 1, W 5 cm N U. 05 c 10 ---------- - 0 Z -6 > 0, 0 0—o C. to! C14 CL 'o t �' o i 0 2 7 & 9 10 CV -,0 > — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — j tt 8 -14- I v I � 1 �,t,.`\ + A'. 23- 4� ;7- 7 30 29 % 6 L4 99 N -1 DMX4251 ('VA 19 15 3 00- oc)?-oo 31 .4 32 !L I C A N 33 SM 42 Milli 41 Sp nuc—— 653 57'30" 165 (PINE NOUNTAINI Survey SCAL-- 12'1C. -O s69 eAb Heavy cz:ll --•� •.. 9no roo roo goo we •, , -_ _ iioo -: 7L1 ' 22 3 .-- ' 100 909 . it• I b0 909 100 -00 tl0 1 co MV 1 I yaoo eo: 28 + I Mw 1 \ J00 moi 03 aw 31 I 32 33 VC I See Trop. Isa aan 1 f -.— HJ::a— .zoo �SOO '��J 1 JIII' J, I11 JlJJ JI t• �J=J11 -• 1100 --saa 5 JS Jy 1 1 na s. moi..—Jl7• f1Y �_`y 1600 � •� �... S. 1 e00 00 30 700"l•T—��— 1 1 % 2 I 26 I 25 r✓� 1 JJI i 1 1 V f 1 1 s J.c1. I e 1 IN I SEE MAP 4 SEE MAP 9 10 0 4 23 I 2� I too I t 26 I 15 � 14 ~4 � i �- . 1 15-11 1 1 � aoa -- -r. —cool i::':::•'----Ijf57)---M!fu:c" � I — ::::'— 1 ---I---- - :- J I I ! s I 3 1 1 =4 19 I 20 l 21 I 2 , I 23 J 4y24" _ i .,'„ If It I /1 1 p I 9 • S 3TE -.— HJ::a— .zoo �SOO .. j :.�.. ..�,t' -• 1100 !19tSoo-00•t�0o/ 1 �_`y 1600 � •� �... S. EMU AUD 30 I �� I 28 % 2 I 26 I 25 \ s J.c1. I e 12+ 2C0 I _ 15 � 14 ~4 � i �- . 1 15-11 1 1 � aoa -- -r. —cool i::':::•'----Ijf57)---M!fu:c" � I — ::::'— 1 ---I---- - :- J I I ! s I 3 1 1 =4 19 I 20 l 21 I 2 , I 23 J 4y24" _ i .,'„ If It I /1 1 p I 9 • _ el_tcr_— 1200 -.— HJ::a— .zoo I J•i• t.µ. . i j I 30 I �� I 28 % 2 I 26 I 25 \ 12+ 2C0 I _ -- I--P9J 20 21 22 23 i `• fj1 Tc0 1cd I 100 9091 b° 909 .001915 oo - ov - vI ao wt 400 Y000 we . 28 I I 26 "c`we}. �•fre 4100 KOs • 31 I 32 33 ��" — ; i s See L44 �~ ` At" i NO 1 . j� r :� j = l . t; l 1 I 1 I . . .,. ,... ., ft .... ... ,... ,.. II .I I JIII JIN ,fJI MII 111. IIM JJN ifi--f--1--1 —�eO--1—_1__1— —_1.__ -- —gyp–L"•�Op --'L– _-1_'01a. s = SEE MAP 10S.1 + fT-3aa 5 4 ti -- ; -- i — I. c _ . ? s c I • lY,JY AOi ��T-- —S�J: .L.••r� �Q� '�« —� �r 7-s'1rIT.l �Oab' I f00 00 ' J00 I _–a - t L'if-- I SEE MAP I `,200 s ---`- 4200 1200 LIZl _ • I NOO t •• �`+ I 1 I •� I 1 I =� + 18 1415 I o 3 « I J uu lI9• tees_ riu. ` V 12 Ielt:L .t .�—ROO !• —i J .. —TI�J •�... 206I—Tm _ =a 19 I 20 I 21 ( jjj 22 I - s 1 a 1 /, o 1 s I J IJ�< I• —.— — JC(!•� -- l .. fl�ltr—_ I. VK _. l•..['f— K•ll.....J 1900 ,....._ 1. .... QO�— ). r,.. ttOp H• a 1900 — % i... 4200 1 'v_ 28 �1 2� I 26 I 25 J: -t• C--_ �j� _— �a L.L' w —. �2C0 � ... .200 1.... -:. �� ... ,200 � / 1•. ' 19 S� 6 � 'tl j — = 31 32 - ? :as i �-- = I p `lJ M•I ; 18 I 20 I 21 I X600 t.,� �� 1 O 24 4 4v—�-•— N.—.� moi.-J...• '/Id:.00 -- JI afo�-4400 •.. _ 4400 / 1 „ca 30 29 ( 28 27' , 5 AIle 0T .00 �«:• .��'— _ 1 SEE i Sire .►i..� 31 , 33 EFut -37,o -i.SM i t9i�op : 4 1404 Ale 00.61300 s � 19 16 32 t �4M3 4204 Iz.,;Y- Wn I t =o' 2- .i,. 1 l.;. I •.« 4ri,. !ia .114 « i I ww I 4 I 3 I �? ,? , .. cc 2300 J� 4i 203 ? •; .. i � 42.2 } o. - I ---� 4200 .:0v �+ 20, a: - Y ..« 1 4245 1 " :a 4�T� 4200 ;'r 9200 4200 "' • 2500 2300 " "• 2500 1 2500 •' 203 4 los :3 1 2 r --T- —7HODi - ... „� --- ---- --+ to I . `,, 2 -I 18—j� 17—, -� — -----16 -isetj 15 14 13 tool 4444 —{"— a 12b�. �... _ +co •.x ..�. =::4444 - --- 2scYr' :• 276tf - i- a 1 \ 1 1 2000 2400f 2400, Yu l i 21 22-rtaa 23 2A— z 3 ----I I! u~ I I 3000 j400 L 2430I —=Jam•:.=• - j•,:., i �` I — - I � �.94094444 2 , 1 3000 27 , 26 I 25 I ` i.' 7 • zroo 24co zcoo auo � ,. t�� '-J.,%..�--�5,� �.�.i—�i::�.---�Z+Ob ----4444.' - 30,0; -3 51T�$� 503 d � o � ° T Ill y� 4 m o OO n . 0 044t' [. 02 c. .. ...4 i i I X01 20 I I . � ' I 21 I 22 11 M 24 3 1 1 1600 lroo 1100 � I I . I 1100 `` -- 30 ---...,; �' 29 I Opo 1,00 I 11aor• 28 + r� 2 G. 25 uoo 1101 1300 I ,. 1 r• uoo roof 1ao 33 I /3 - fffr 1 6 „ SEE MAP , 31 I 3 u 1916 32 • w• i RA `•CODs I Ko. 12:1 I 1206 -74' ; 1 If /1 1 ail I a :. I ail• ail. a.ir I 12 —.f--}.�— — 121.. ' I =Y 1201 . ,' 11.3 5 •2;2 120• 1.01 7 20 2.1 1 .,M 1 1213 tzoo Q00 1 1 ' 1 I i 102 5001 I 1 300 � 20: 2:U.:I -Cul 4 j 1 f 1 .3 12 1 —2s0o 1f y i 1 I HH I i:.. ^—i2ppi :7 ---Isco—1300(�i:.::''�000 1 � faa. 1 -y=3 L _I 115-1 ---1 IS ��--; I7— �r—.�--16 ' � C ---I � too 1401 i 4./ �_ jug v --12 —_._ .ry�. X01 .•••. . � ' I 21 I 22 2 24 3 1 1 1600 lroo =-4 � I 1000 . I 1100 `` , = I 1 I ---...,; �' I Opo 1,00 I 11aor• 28 + 1 27 2 G. 25 1o0 1300 I I ! 1ao 33 I /3 - 35 6 „ , i RA `•CODs I Ko. 12:1 I 1206 -74' ; 1 If /1 1 ail I a :. I ail• ail. a.ir I 12 —.f--}.�— — 121.. ' I =Y 1201 . ,' 11.3 5 •2;2 120• 1.01 7 20 2.1 1 .,M 1 1213 tzoo Q00 1 1 ' 1 I i 102 5001 I 1 300 � 20: 2:U.:I -Cul 4 j 1 f 1 .3 12 1 —2s0o 1f y i 1 I HH I i:.. ^—i2ppi :7 ---Isco—1300(�i:.::''�000 1 � faa. 1 -y=3 L _I 115-1 ---1 IS ��--; I7— �r—.�--16 ' � C ---I � too 1401 i 4./ �_ jug v --12 —_._ .ry�. X01 .•••. . � � 1 I 1— ,.•�_1�� I � 21 3 1 1 =-4 � 3W0 1000 . I „a— `` , = I 1 I ff µ�_�t"{i «., 1p f.'' .: 26�J X3 0 �• fill- ---- TOT .__4 = I um 2100 I I—!�a�t3 •' -- IM A !sm Long, � 2Ul(.QU-OC (2 I 0oboc 00100 QO$l}I 1 13 I 26 I 25 I t/.al �'-- — iii :�.---- �,,------•?'#�,;'. ��-.``� ,''^: i I 26 I 25 I t/.al �'-- — iii :�.---- �,,------•?'#�,;'. ��-.``� ,''^: I - — - ORS CIiAPTF.I. LS REQUIRES TRAT IF YOU RECEIVE Vii$ IN�I IIC�, I f� � �` �3 IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCM SER. U a: 3 2__ .\ .; � � , ( '= a r• `-may �. \` '\,;,,,• �.<„ ` •; ' . 1 800000 f ' • /1 ` •� - (`, .I- 'i!. ....... .. wv Ja+• \ \ 1 • �..-..... •'���r ASM : _ • : ' --- — t- ?-- W -- --- - fi , cL:'400 I � (�, (. tip. ` .�"•;" �� "�. • I . ,�,,, i . l.. t If 1 1 _ •�t` ... • 8M 4126.. `^�' � :. \� �•` ; .5 ' . l �.—�� � + '. 1 / � 1 1.6 - <+t � i. �� ''' 1. :� ,. ♦fie, 1 r 1 FILE.#508 08 LOCATION: This site is located approximately 2.5 miles north j A of the highway, in Township 20, Range 17, Section Oi, Tax Lot 150• 1000. The site is roughly fburmiles NW of the town of 1 I ` Brothers. ` PRESENT ZONING: EFU 320,/FP --------_- ADJACENT ZONING: EFU 320, SM' I, -- --- COHPREHENSIVE PLAN: AGRICULTURE, SORFACEKINING, AND FLOOD -- ------ I PLAIN. -1 _ \ SIZE- -10 ACRES OWNERSHIP: OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION RESOIIRCE TYPS:-: ;AGGREGATE , QUALITY mEETS ODOT SPECIFICATIONS, ' QUANTITY 100,000 CUBIC,YARDS. 2 21 / __-- I of n a HEARING DATE: August_. 7l 1989 HEARING TIME:. 6:30 P.M. , HEARING PLACE: County Administration Building -------�'------------------ Hearings Room �. .1130 N.W. Harriman Street BEND, . OREGON • 97701 •n' 27 i •'.li ♦,< 26�.y.4. . - - '<u, 25 13 `t \j t f•♦ t SITES cru -no -4 .rm NN i r L2 I1 i o �� '� oo , c •o is- w ro N — — - N i 10 i V , «�1 N I t• to N N I �V J M !o - _ g {0 Lu is 8 • Nt1 tD N ` Nfx I LC) f �� ,1 ti I N 1 N $ g •1 ' � 1 .-J N I Ii Sp I I M M ---� 1-j--T--"f'--T-- --T— .•�--------- :T f: -fit «,� n�� �T -�� «s� ^�1 +s . T IL a6 E� 201601-00-OOtod °° 18 to Ig- p'• 0 �. -. . I i a 10 0 10 10 ! I 8 `O i0 m 8 0 IST -- cv — e- w , • r C i J 10 T � 1 N�– – i _- • 10 O ^• 1« N 10 � � - � y Al LO M �• - O _ i4r ODM M M _� Q1 _ M 0 o .a 8 o + 1 I ►: p l- m N N s o to N t M liw4. O=• O o - 10 O _ ,o :o o _g .- o �-• O �w Sw � I� 1 w 1EFLk 9 00-00 -0 1000 • �• -(1t 1 1. � Q1. �- - LD • M I�i T — N M i46 _S2 C4 t)4�If4 i (n-- M -- N (� o i o V I co I •� 1 � E � �:_ 1 I I --r O 10C' O.. 1M•- 1O q 1 O lb - ED w� 8 �. J�. � _ 1 -- �-----T—•--T— '� 1. �. � � � � � �� w21 w•PEs �: _=1 ~zl w:l •' : �= w�' •�� •-� —:1 ": w• �' —31 w:1 wl 1 �: �� 3i• 7 S' :t esn —S .. r I 1 13 u cr FILE #528 LOCATION: This is a small site which is located three miles as east of Hampton on Schrader Road, in Township 22, Range 21, A Section 10, Tax Lot 600. PRESENT ZOKIM: • SNR ADJACENT ZONIIIG: EFU 320 >K DOIiSIVE PLAN: AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURE 54800 SIM: 5.5 ACRES OWNERSHIP: OREGON STATS HIGHWAY DIVISION '—mss RESOURCE TYPE: AGGREGATE, QUALITY MEETS ODT SPECIFICATIONS, „v QUANTITY IS 45,000 CUBIC YARDS. 12 HEARING DATE: August 7, 1989 HEARING• TIME: 6:30 P.M_* HEARIN4 PLACE: County Administration Building .p p Ig ECnNsra+ort Hearings Room �-_� •�Qi�Place .1130 N.W. Harriman Street -BEND, OREGON 97701 3 24 - 9 U - 1 11 U . 30 i ' 27 G /� 20 52 400 , 1 o J`w 47 G 11 . 1 -strip- V c 1� 7 g N� a by 12- ` �7 ton soh * I7 It It K 13 X18 '� e t1``` 11 Msid S% IE I. �1 0-3 ! 24Ilii 210 22 �j 2 —/y24 19 10 �n ZI >e3'jq T r 2 2s�y NOTICE TO MOR'TGAGEF, LIIIIHOLDER, VENDOROR SELLER ` 6 �s ORS- CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, 35 J6 1T MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER _ -a �1 3 4 0-35 1 34, C) S i-T—E # g S AA 2 -'� Slit Z ts,�� : J4 p '2f WO -W.- e M1 cQc Q O — ••1 N O A.a'i Y: F { «— r N ` 0 zz 4L w~ O 1 w O w - N 2 W N Y. Ol z z o y t •+ •�3 •-i t L " N d9w 33S 10 i n e � Q o r > ai�'i1�t.,� �` a� a— ,o, Q� g d• � w o W W "yy W W W K'e0 y N N N N ='O N © ^' o � N i)j cV • >> _ v � L O f O i O 3 C O O N N N N N _ 2 ---� _A = W N CD • i' =�;`��- �'� 1 Z Z 1100 -00 -00300OD i —T--.1 — �rt — i—. ---f f �1 _ +; .1 i 1 1 • 1/ =Od 1 j'«jl wtl -I 0 l Oe N N W /O t: + o i�r� d7w 335 3: �f • _ to 1 t[) d 2 =a tic - 0 � , o � N r c �� o : J4 p '2f WO -W.- e M1 cQc Q O — ••1 N O A.a'i Y: F { «— r N ` 0 zz 4L w~ O 1 w O w - N 2 W N Y. Ol z z o y t •+ •�3 •-i t L " N d9w 33S 10 i n e � Q o r > ai�'i1�t.,� �` a� a— ,o, Q� g d• � w o W W "yy W W W K'e0 y N N N N ='O N © ^' o � N i)j cV • >> _ v � L O f O i O 3 C O O N N N N N _ 2 Z 0 U k AV let I60 66t. . S�•„ • I ` �'•Is 1 / ...... ....._.... _. - 1 • •pi i ~ :1 300 AGraw pit 112 CD 1• l �:a i 1013.00 00100 �-;� •• �,�,; 1 r Fvt• N p -j f ::�� • O c• i . ia•''' ,�: Deep t. �t S ••' /( Mw :idmUj . �. + � � ,�•R, ��wwwo �_,7rr� ,• .tis �,�� � , !!••at•K • r wca � /I i • �o � i 1 •. •! "'• ,./ 1 i ) � l i � �plirx �� I • 1 . p a A •a ") (! • • •....•• 1 / t,r ;'•.•t ` f • I \ �� :�I 29 19 4J 23z „ "24 23 / ,17110••••• J 1 �I JII i f •• ;,F •Ifl to � ,_ �'� 1 • ••a '• } ` ' • —�-- 12l •3(r •10 1 JI0000 ►EEt Ac..o .+ w 2730• •1/ 'r'iix'iw w»,♦u Mapped. edited, and published by thtl Guolosiul Surv.tr I 0? - U4b�t EXHIBIT "C" (ZONING MAPS FOR INVENTORIED SITES NOT ZONED SM) -,a - 1 ORS CRM- - __R 21S REQUIRES TIiAT IF YOU RECEI . TRIS NOTICE, --- TT MUST PRObUPMY BE FORWARD® TO THE P�UURCIIASERv� tTI ..��,-� II: ii ....._ ',- Li --_ M C!) o r V I.: .v13 FILE x{246 1 it •� LOCATION• This site runs alon S aw Creek jus g '4ut east of �^ Sisters, in Township 15Range -lo,. Section 03, 09, .10, Tax '•12 Lot 1000. The site is gravel mining area within, the creek. T las drainage. ie•' PRESZNT Z00 PIP ADJACENT ZOUNG: RR -20, EM - 40 -Cl , !2 . CO pLi1N: -FLOOD' PLAIN, .EXCLUSIVE FARM USE 20, s r -'2II �C '+ RURAL RES DE nMAL S3C9Z: " ACRES- i Off: STATS OF OEM= * - - ItESOURCR TIPSS. AGGREGl\TS;-MEETS ODOT SPECIFICATIONS, QUANTITY IS 10,000 cmaC Yam. o. m' 26 HEARING DATE: August 9 , 1989 HEARING TIME: 6:30 P.M.: HEARING PLACE: County Administration Building 1 er Hearings Room .;u3 1 1130 N.W. Harriman Street BEND, OREGON 97701 aam� Hu_ 04 43Z4 tf 5 `•' •' • • • �� '1 Mc lIr .;� ate, •- \ -\ .; = _1-- '"` 1-14 g' \ it=• n : 'r /eH aleW ��.;•- ": of _ �epA • - ♦ S .I�x. I 1192 -- ! l i • ` .I rte: I 1;. 1 - .,: - • • ' : 8.IIAM 004 !'�.r � �- • .��ii� ~• �='lri± . �' o+�� S ITI�'� � 7'� (o I.+.t ac~>_'• �- �1�� i� .. A 15003, a9� 10 _ 1s• •��-- Y <� �- - ;• :�¢ -OOtuS Zoe, Z08 003 -(' ' `• •,.!y,.,Yj •1� _ • �- .+; -200001 Z. .�. _-i ; `- 0 ; . � � �. •, 4 1 �;ky� ••.{ ! 25. � V.Y.�.• • . r' `i'i y i i i `?: Y' i I - ._. �+. - ` ,0 .'1 :• ♦: ,..L � -• �-i. is (BROKEN TOP)••I2 ' 35• • - ..........1.«...c.. v.+........-4-- e c -•«.: :1 730000IFEET MOUTH 1 n r.w(c CwccK a CC r3 .rr. 1 R W E 12t30' SCALEE 1 1:62500 - - - •19000'•£ •:. 1 = NLts ROAD CLASSiRCA 1ON L; r_ na° •om � � �•-- Iwoo � I�an�o • auao•r(�t . • , -- (�� HeaWdutr LortGuty T 3 S'w40•.CT(aS '— Medium -duty _ , . _ U�:mixO.e�� G� .......... CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET OOTTEO LINES REPRESENT 20.f00r CONTOURS U j Rai• O.TUn ,S *'E.N SE. LEvEL c •o=••.ac Lx.ou=' SISTEPS. OR EG L,_.. L Hcy .,:UR.CT sl ­ D -r; Gz.,J:,iC:.L SLjt;­) = u 10.',7-) t301 �' I, C 5 ITE 44 2-9 to M 1100 I 900IIJ.I I 900 700 00 700 i 301 .00 N 2.3 floo 1100 1300 e I ,•0 IS00 7 16.00 2.4 100 4100 1700 -TnEF 2.5 SM aEFU• 2,0 Zaye 1600 15 1211 Do OIL400 l S 17. 14 A 0 - 00 800 1200 n 12 - 901 90 100 14 13 900 300 200 k 500 ' I p G I 900 v� C ON t • 'REQ 900 601 OLOLJ 2.4 4 4.. RFQ�O N SISTERS ..�. 1,... .., � ; •� ,..,... ; e -------- _ 111� ; laoo - - 1100 00 E i 1101 to L �i..i IrIx N �• I 3 Z I 1 N v, 1 ..... •• uOz joa - 0457 0 is to to J © t ox O joa - 0457 0 is to to 0 4 b t3 t 11 1000 •00 1 1 u.1 F-1 � i N 1 x.11 S �Q ti 900 k w MMJH•rn 100 . _. T-900 ' T 900 700 :oo 00 ? U Uel _ ' 700 W W too 701 . 1 1. 2.3 IlOo 1400 ICO uoo � 2.4 1 300 k u� 1600 1 1 1700 - f 10001 F EFU -2 0 11 1t Z oKe 100 14 13 5 12 11-00-01200 1$ IZ IU A0-00101 zoo 500 i 601 y f rk LJ I P-4 n Q: 900 OM Q ` `•••.,, ... �, S/S TER 1000 X100 1z00 E ! L1Yfa1J L.L_- \ S. 1 u.1 i 1 x.11 �Q 900 � ,•! 0� o aa0 aE� 900 _ \ S. Qo 0 6z C4 . 0 0 Li D t�- r z D 0 U 0 N o W I M . Z 0 U3 W p 0 N � O 3 � o Mrl � �•' 0461 cr O 0 �y r � o y ""': -o oo► 'Coss © f n � �m CID C� r z 0 U _ 0 � o W I— U N W A3 d q S 0 O► :s t33/ OOt 009611 31VOS �g ,0 046 W o � MQ o ti 8 4 0 ►y c *� 0 CA L N a O 0 � � M M O `i o OD j o �JJ � le «t I I D k. 1 w s --•-i — A N Z ^= 1 1 I 0 1 —+-- yr- arm---- ---------- -- '-- 1 a0Z -U4 tD N t 0 N 1 r -- i N 1 _ ♦� � 1 •j 1 � o t 2 11 1 2 1 I 1 �_— _� 1 1 �`� NCD ch Mme+ t nX� g LL, O f li yv 1Wq Q 1nO yO 7�a-aJcr--- O to i 1 0 n a m a o 0. < o i WS<P �e U m W 00 m ip H o to a0Z -U4 tD N t 0 N 9 .. «w +K >r3237tO11Y � ' O 000+ 0Q;,: `�--_- W �`� NCD ch Mme+ nX� g 9 .. «w +K >r3237tO11Y � ' O 000+ 0Q;,: `�--_- oa 20 � R o '*-I vi M If f I YI don Ila6 I%1 - 0466 cc n j ,YN ;, a - o g a 1 I.00' m •d 1.00 MAP W. „ 19 i• o i 4t ----� 6.15 • 14001400 1.00 1 1 MI I .. I ---I . 30 29 uoo �= 1 .--.� 1400 1.00 1 1 14W 1400 r i ----i I 32 I 33 •M I I 11.0 I I s I 1 s VI/ I ' tJ 11 IwM I 1 I JI•• 1 �/• .w.. 1 •0 7 9 —i.... 1 000 t --- I I w 1J I � J• I• --...� 1... pC0 = I 1 1 = "of 18 y I •wsr • 1 I • I — 19 20 h-- •1 I I4 -+ 30 poo 29 F--�-/ 28 I 000 i S • 1000 • .0 1— 1.00 22 6.15 23 6.13 .00 U46E) SEE MAP 24 :I MA SEE MAP 26 25 1.00 VE36 MAP SEE 01 16 10 C '.S f'rc- :tt 3 4 ,SA/,.K -•-3 (Wk) 1(01000.00.00106 -100•• U00 pW� I000 1 -- 1 -2 -I f 1 32 I 33 34 35 25 I000 z U U) W Q O ' O c 0 CD O' UA .h �W Nim 1L6 g c I� L L CLM Y O I - 0 4 -iL, ea NI 0 Lo I Q M N o$$ $g Q�N MA �+ °i �omg8'cvgg�an E E V 0 O � N 0 4 IA vi y I I al 91 ft" *as g o0 °IO CD M �p N 40 t0 O M ^N 0 r ^ O • ..m� RP mtD .. P .. In .O O =wPM • $ U 4 YI g .-L Zy k M NIT O P P O �j O p N � 0, ^ 8v 00 v • S _' m m 101 O �LnoO 11 V mIn N a , M O• 0 O 0 -� In 8 I` o In CY z\G1j�� / ` v • 47P r n a e •� ISR �i _.T _I I ?nl'o] �Stj Nj'tfT In l'oM h[ �Nj �nl ��� I $o�t`•'r� -� - 11V111 _L .� t I iU1 1 1 1 1 J L 1 1 _L W N CTT r T r -i •rT-T Tr T7 " TT T m m^ _ 8 I 11 i 0 I P N. ,_ i I I I a I 1 l 1 f- I_ I i y Q P OI^I o P m r-• = 4 NI=1 t I I IW� I -1-I L1�piLJWt1r{.P�J J L - T T (A T T t T t8 &Icr lnID' p I (_iN iM 'R lnl m� UI NI i'3jNjln �a �mlW�l V, �! INI I i ti �11b1 I I 1 1 I; I I 1 I I J 4 _ IMIa n ui NlNlln O,'I CC INIMlalniml� a I^IlMlalnlwl # IN aIP w _ g\ I m iT7�- TTT�TTI'-1—T-T TOl 1 1 T -1- (A 1 .j I_1 m i_I mlml^y t,c� I I I I_ o I pp I_I I I I ol_I I IL� I t 1 i I Im'Iml^ I_ N m,mll- F I -IQ Imiml^� 4I-I�10:-1-41 /, �_-11 •f m m Np }�'l J++ L 1 j'YQ/�1 1 _, l� 1v` -S Qj 1 L J L L _ 1 1 -1 1 1 �1 L 1 J L 1.1. 1 1 J 1 1 T r j T -r fH 1 I �W r TY 4, 'l t' T t T� �• T T f TAT QQ�� T �I ]�� ` T LflTT�a 'TOTTi ' IOIMja jnlm! �71 NIM j+,n lM,,.T '! li jNl^1 Ini ' �� 1Nlnlajn lm� (,2 IN1MIaln lml h IN1M1+InI ❑ INIMI+ T ��. ///��� //�� 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I IrON j J.al_ L L .L J L 1 1 J. ' t. _i J N t 1 _I J_ 1_�l 1 1 1- 1/l,1, L 1 1 1 i J L 1 1 1 1 1 J L 1 3nN3Av 031V7VA �T T -1- ' r T T T T- l- r r T T "T T' �-.i.�..� _ _ �=1Q PImI^i 1 IQ IP 1m 1^O �It I -101011m I^ d i 17, i T i i -TT-, roT TT�r �j ; 1 1 1 1 1=1 I I I I-1-� I I! + 1- O P m ^� 4 PIm I^� I_ 4lalmini I, IQIPIm I^SI (,� 1 1 f. W 1 r-+ 1 I I !1-I I I I I I -I I I 1 7 1-I 1 1 I L IPIO I^ >r1 � 1_ J_ 1 Q 4 1 _1_ 1t7 L L i - I� � 7 -L I'cy7 1 t � � 1 1_ � 1 1 a 1.+1 L T T In T T l r 7 T I�1 T T U f' T T T T )� y' Z/T 1� T T` I 1 Q T �f CO T T f0'T T IN I'^la lnlmi �t �NjM+In �,ot�>�+ �N �M lalnlmJ �! INIm nlw4>Q IN�MIa In Im.�>P iNlMla�nlloa� IN1M aln l.o� LLINIri 1a 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I t I I C I I I iLJ iiJ L11-1 L1 J L1 _i. 1 J 1 1 L L1 1 J L11 J L.1L L��J=L11.1.,1J L.111 �" �� ua_LV�VA � (loom 3 . --F T T T I ; i T T T 1L, 'r T T T T T T T -1 � T T T T T _T T T T -3 T T T T l Fo T T �S 1_Io IP Im i^� N _ -1 lml^!1 I 1=10 IP Im 11-i��J I_131mlmlry] I_I Imiml^:I `` I � 4 T_1 I I I o f 1 I -I -I 1 r l-I_I I I =r I -I 1 1 W I -I I l l i I-IQI 11 C I-, 41PIm1P I41PIm 11�L Li L ! L _ + t e. (d 1 > L 1 _.L L L L 1�� ,,7^� 1 1 k J_•L Is L 1 Li i T l f I T 7�011'; T T q">' T T l g I' T T f� TT EU Cyj l T T T 1 7 TL.�_l._.s.l-• I 1 I r Ia' I LL -I. I . l _ �.s I'.�r L L _..1 .1.1_.1!•. 1+ I Zi 91 dow *as L'7137;0�1'1 OZ' Gi O t38� 000 06a o ooa .- . _... - . _. ,___ C" C. O 0 7 r n (ti M ►y O 0 0011 k► 4i COD . l�4 1-�4 0 00 w M J, g -- i N o N M a O R + 1 1 ZI ` w N m 0- O i 20 i I Imo+ W Lo to uj 2+S a W rot m 11r;, 4 zn �� R g g g I$ a a ao•�a a 2 g u Fr- W §M N 4 {� i � i ..JryWa W O V W W Ma' er a o U U) an e a ° - - W o.. 10 \/ Q i rn m m m W W Q1 W N M W W W a a aLJ a JJ O� W W w r $ N °d M a (� W U) W\ (n 25 „N� s W W W M W m h m al Qc c L cQc L G 1� •.a' N m W W W a yyqq X a o 0 }�vn `X e n • W U) U) _ _ _ m m H m C" C. 21 B1 don •K U) o Lu U) U) _0 0) 1 044 HC4 4 . ■ .`. -- — ��� - � -- ---- ---- of----- - - - -- q -- � � 1 yT `ti N • a w� s� O ii 03 C r N N 1 o; s - - f --- 47 1 8 I�w I` I� O 4— 25_n f N C - � a " �Si'�• I YN �/I N t� / Q W ' N �--- I u u I I--- • W jC� A � [c• MY. I r 4 y33 -- --- /� — \ I:P --r ---�• i--� x11300-00-DUIUI �— ' 4- C _ I of �� o + m • 1 is t .,iv t= u' ICN I>e P 1- u I` N 1 ° is a ,. N 1� - ,., I,w 1„ w ��♦ FO �- ry • it a �� � +;Ni co c0 .51 LQ 0 F z I rn IleI -/ ,e I o N M •-a A Q .1 o ;—,o - 04.iG A 0 Is ID 0 J) tl dL% NS r ov— , m 3 K OI ►1 don rs till 0 o pOOOcO 14 M h sof Oi >i aoW ws 09C 0; 4i dour aas tLN f\ I7 o O $ N ' � • r N �.3a '' i - mNV •sa. a O c.. m ♦ !o n - a o 1 a O • 0' ti b Y �,�, N M O O aa• ae'e+r n n • n .�. • 3 JNwn Z o $ D O � O $ o � '� ••'O N M b O O N U� W I O i r • N � m • �.. N ! $ O CD el --. m OD m all N A K OI ►1 don rs 1577 A D