Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-24-Minutes for Meeting January 06,2016 Recorded 1/28/2016 DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS d i 4 2016� i NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK 1� U.2` cam` COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 01/26/2016 09;33;36 AM w 0 � II II I I �lUI�lIIIIIIl III e' s - Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Document Reproduces Poorly 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (Archived)odu (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2016 Commissioners'Hearing Room-Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Dave Doyle, County Counsel; Ed Keith, County Forester; Will Groves, Peter Gutowsky and Peter Russell, Community Development; and approximately twenty-five other citizens. No representatives of the media were in attendance. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Alan Unger called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CITIZEN INPUT None was offered. CONSENT AGENDA Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 1 of 26 BANEY: Move approval with the exception of the minutes, which she has not yet had time to review. DEBONE: Second VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 4. Board Signature of Order No. 2016-001, Authorizing the Disposal of Three Surplus Vehicles through Auction (Sheriffs Office) 5. Board Signature of Document No. 2016-004, Real Property Lease for Sheriff's Substation in Terrebonne 6. Board Signature of Minutes: • Work Sessions of December 21 and 28, 2015 . Business Meetings of December 21 and 28, 2015 ACTION ITEMS 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2016-013, a Notice of Intent to Award Contracts Letter to the Qualified Contractor Pool for Fuels Reduction Services. Ed Keith gave an overview of the item, which follows same process that has been done since about 2008. There are thirty contractors who will bid on handling a variety of smaller projects. This allows for a quick turnaround to get these projects done in a timely manner. He has heard no concerns or complaints, but increased interest from some contractors who might be new to the area, and some have dropped off because of other demands of their time. BANEY: Move approval with the exception of the minutes, which she has not yet had time to review. DEBONE: Second VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 2 of 26 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-001, a Plan Amendment from Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial Exception Area (Deschutes Junction - Aceti). Peter Gutowsky provided a brief overview of the Ordinances and the history getting to this point. There have been no changes or comments since the first reading. BANEY: Move second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2016-001. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Chair Unger read the Ordinance by title only. BANEY: Move adoption. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-002, a Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial Exception Area (Deschutes Junction - Aceti). BANEY: Move second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2016-002. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Chair Unger read the Ordinance by title only. BANEY: Move adoption. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 3 of 26 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-003, a Text Amendment regarding Deschutes County Code Title 18 to Modify DCC 18.113.060, Standards for Destination Resorts (Eagle Crest). Peter Gutowsky explained the item and the reasons for the Ordinance. There have been no changes since the first reading. Commissioner Baney said she did. receive a couple of public comments on this issue but she feels this is the best way to proceed at this point. Chair Unger noted that it is to help solve a problem. Commissioner DeBone feels that this is the most viable solution. Commissioner Baney added that it only applies to Eagle Crest. DEBONE: Move second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2016-003. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Chair Unger read the Ordinance by title only. DEBONE: Move adoption. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 11. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (De Novo) on a Conditional Use, Tentative Subdivision Plan and Site Plan Approval on a Lower Bridge Planned Unit Development. Chair Unger started the opening statement. Will Groves provided an overview of the process to be followed and the application. In regard to ex parte contacts, bias, conflicts of interest or personal interest, Commissioner Baney said she was here as a Commissioner in 2008 when this was originally discussed and has been part of the conversation since then. She had met with Mr. Daniels some time ago but there has been no significant contact or discussion on this issue. Commissioner DeBone said that he had nothing to disclose, but that there is a site visit planned for next week when all three Commissioners will be present. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 4 of 26 Chair Unger said he observed or was in the same hearings on this issue in the past, and grew up in Central Oregon, so is familiar where the property is. There were no challenges offered to the Board. Mr. Groves provided a history of the site going back decades. (He gave a PowerPoint presentation, which is attached for reference.) He explained the results of previous hearings and decisions regarding the various portions of the property— for the most part, the east and west portions of the property. There are a number of zones in place, and Code is not clear on how to handle this when there are multiple zones across a property. Commissioner DeBone asked about tax lots and legal lots of record. Mr. Groves said there are a number of these. It could accommodate residential development given its size, if the current use is discontinued. There are questions about conditional use standards and environmental issues. Some of the area was rezoned RR-10 in 2008. The Hearings Officer found that a planned unit development is allowable but cannot be in a flood plain or on EFU land, and the flood plain cannot be counted towards open space. The flood plain boundaries are not entirely accurate since some of this land is 30 or more feet above the riverbank. Conditional use standards come into play with the PUD density bonus. The Hearings Officer found that the entire development is subject to conditional use. A work plan to investigate any hazards has been provided but no results have been submitted at this time. There are several phases required when there might be hazardous material, and an approved plan to address these. They would also need letters from the Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon Health Authority indicating there is no remaining hazards to humans. The Hearings Officer focused on dust, and felt there were no other hazards on the subject property at this time. The future use of the west side has not been determined, so potential uses could include opening it for mining again. This is a concern if the eastern portion is developed for residential use. The applicant submitted a modification of application to remove the EFU zoned land, 10.4 acres, from the parent parcel and the subdivision. It was not relied upon for the density calculation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 5 of 26 This modification reset the 150 day timeline. The applicant may indicate whether a new notice is required for this. Staff does not feel this is necessary since the notice area is now smaller. Mr. Groves gave an overview of the actions that the Board may take at the end of the hearing. Since there is a site visit planned, they could keep the record open specifically for this and to provide a report on their findings, and allow the parties to respond. Attorney Tia Lewis, for the applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation (a copy of which is attached for reference). She referred to exhibits: the revised tentative plan; the firm map on the subject property showing the flood plain zone; the rimrock setback areas and proposed additional setbacks; two typical lot layouts; and a draft dust control plan. The plan comes further in the DEQ process so was developed before DEQ has formally approved it, as it is now a draft document. There is a large team of consultants working on this since 2006. (She introduced two of them at this time.) She referred to two 2008 slides of the project site and concept plan. The hearings were actually developed at that time, with the help of DEQ, DOGAMI, Oregon Water Resources and the Board of Commissioners (Baney, Luke and Daly). They specifically developed the language at that time regarding residential use and cleanup of the property. They were concerned about impacts to the eastside portion from the westside portion, looking for the end result after a cleanup and the documents that DEQ and. DHS would provide. Those two documents would inform about and regulate any health hazards. Thirty acres from the west side were added to the east side so they could develop a 20 lot planned unit development. The point was to obtain enough revenue to adequately take care of the rest of the ro ert concept plan The lan p P Y P was done for 18 lots but 20 would make it pencil better. The added area would be preserved as open space. There are three main issues to address. The split zoning: EFU and flood plain. It has 10 acres zoned EFU but that land was not counted towards the development. The Hearings Officer found that the subdivision contains this lot, however. It could be lot line adjusted and attached to the western property. The floodplain issue is more complicated. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 6 of 26 The second issue is the rimrock setback, and the environmental issue is third as it seems to be of more concern. The floodplain zone requires the Board to interpret the zone, to allow this to be part of the proposed open space. (She referred to a slide with the river and riparian areas.) These are not steep slopes that would be typical rimrock. Their proposal would have all of this as open space. It is 45 acres, with 65 total acres in the development. The floodplain is a flood hazard as federally designated. The maps attempt to show any flood areas for flood insurance rates. Zone A area means no base flood areas have been determined. The line goes about 70 feet up the rim, and it is clear that the flood boundary does not match field conditions. The County has some ability to determine this. FEMA requirements show where these areas are, but there is a significant elevation difference. This piece of property has over 1.5 miles of riverfront, with no firm data on a flood plain. Subdivisions are allowed conditionally. Open space is not a use in RR-10 or MUA or in any other zone;just in the flood plain zone. People do not go for permits to use open space. It is listed because it is a base zone and not an overlay zone. It is always part of another zone. It is listed in the open space zone for the very reasons they are advocating. The Hearings Officer acknowledged this and the intent might have been to do exactly what is being proposed, but found this is a Board decision. The entire river frontage, 45 acres, will all be open space, with no lots and no development, it can be given conditions, and would be part of the homeowners' association's responsibilities to properly maintain. The lots on the other side of the river actually run to the middle of the river. Other alternatives might be a 15-lot subdivision with ten acres each, all with some river frontage like Ranch of the Canyons; or 19 lots with 65 acres of open space including the riparian areas. This meets FEMA guidelines and the purpose of Code, and is consistent with what was decided in 2008. Rimrock is defined as being over 45 degrees. The setback is for new structures. They want to address this at the time of lot approval, but the Hearings Officer felt that the rimrock setback allows exceptions and it might be hard to place all that is necessary on every lot. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 7 of 26 They surveyed all the rimrock on the land and each lot will have a fifty-foot setback or more. This will address the Hearings Officer's concerns and some of the opponents' testimony about structures being visible from the river. They also provided information on typical lot layouts showing they can locate a single family dwelling and infrastructure as needed. Regarding suitability for residential use, the Hearings Officer found that the applicant met all the suitability requirements except for blowing dust. She separated this from the voluntary cleanup program with the DEQ. They would impose a voluntary cleanup plan, but they have not gotten comments back from the DEQ on this yet. They want to be clear what was decided in 2008 and developed conditions based on this. The timing of the conditions was discussed at length at the time. All of the environmental agencies, Board and staff feel that this would be the final plat approval but before development can occur, so the applicant will know there will be funds to conduct any required cleanup. They have been doing a lot since 2006. It takes a long time to get this before the Board. In 2006, Mr. Daniels entered into an agreement on the property and hired consultants to learn how to deal with the site. There were no regulatory requirements to clean it up and there were no grants or other help available. Part of this was to try to stop the blowing dust. In 2007 they bought a pivot, bought temporary water rights and seeded over 100 acres, and irrigated it for over two years. In 2007 they did the first environmental assessment. This became the basis of the draft work plan. They filed for a zone change and plan amendment, and hearings occurred in 2008. There were a lot of environmental consultants involved. This is all in the record. Discussions started with the DEQ regarding voluntary cleanup. The plan amendment was approved in 2008 with the Ordinance adopted in 2009. From 2009 to 2014, the recession was in play but they were still planning. There was no funding to do much but they sought out investors and prepared for economic recovery. In 2014 they did the present application for a tentative plan. A landscape plan was developed along with CCR's. The work plan was developed and is waiting for DEQ approval. In 2015 they applied for what is being considered today. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 8 of 26 They have invested about $1.3 million to get to this point. All environmental issues have all been addressed except for the dust. They have to demonstrate that this is safe for residential use before they can get approval from the agencies. Scott Wallace of the Wallace Group has been working on this since 2011. He commended the Commissioners for identifying the lead agency as the DEQ. They administer the cleanup activities and conditional approval of the NFA (no further action required) with the input of the OHA. He provided the history of the agreements and how oversight and investigations will occur, along with the cleanup and final reporting. The east parcel was an aggregate sand and gravel operation and mobile asphalt plant. Nothing is left except for some debris, and not much resource. It has diatomaceous earth underlying but that has not been exposed. Based on historical information as commissioned in 2007, they developed a work plan to address the historic mining areas, and three other areas where debris was found and activities occurred. They incorporated DEQ and OHA comments regarding groundwater impacts from mining, so they have groundwater monitoring wells planned along with dust mitigation efforts during investigations or from the adjacent properties. He explained how they sample and test potential contaminants, and the DEQ process. Residential use requires the most cleanup. Mr. Wallace showed the areas that were most heavily utilized in the past, and where they will focus much of their investigation. They will install wells for groundwater monitoring purposes as well. They will be monitoring dust from three locations, to determine if they are generating dust or if it is coming from other sources. They are ready to implement this when they get a notice to proceed, hopefully during this calendar year. Commissioner Baney said this map is not consistent with the project site map. She asked if they are going to be looking into the other area. Mr. Walker said that they will not be looking at anything west of Lower Bridge Road since there is no development planned for that area. Chair Unger said this is part of the issue, with this huge mining site that needs to be addressed. Mr. Walker said the work plan is looking at where the development is planned. They will be looking at the dust issues if dust might end up in that area. They do not have any remedial investigation planned for the west side at this point. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 9 of 26 Commissioner Baney stated that if there is open space, this should be included. from an environmental perspective. That is different than the proposed site, and she asked about the thirty-acre piece. Mr. Wallace said the slide was developed in 2014 and shows twenty lots. This is part of the discrepancy. They do not plan to do invasive digging. M s. Lewis as ked for a few minutes for rebuttal after citizen testimony. y. David Anderson, Eastern Region DEQ Manager, with Bob Schwartz, DEQ project manager, explained that they have been involved with this property since 2008. They are working with the applicant, but DEQ is somewhat constrained by its rules. DEQ will try to help people get to some kind of resolution. David G. Farrer of the Oregon Health Authority said that something has changed since 2009 with the initial report, which is the applicant entering into voluntary cleanup. OHA can now work with DEQ and roll their concerns into this. The dust monitoring addresses their concerns for the most part. Commissioner Baney stated that the Tennyson Engineering report from 1974 is part of a request for a solid waste disposal site. She asked if this covers the entire property. Mr. Anderson said he does not know the entire footprint, and there were four lagoons used for this. There is a lot of history on this property in the record. Commissioner Baney said that she can't recall if any of this activity occurred on this part of the property. Mr. Anderson said these activities were only on the west side of the property. The drums and other waste were cleaned up in the 1980's and approved by the DEQ. It meets industrial standards and probably could meet residential with further review. This was all addressed adequately, per the DEQ. It did not happen for long, as the permit was pulled. It was all hauled away and subsequent investigations did not find anything there. Commissioner Baney asked what kind of evaluation would have been done, as to what was there and what might still be there. Mr. Anderson said they had to indicate the type of waste allowed and what was actually delivered; some of it never showed up. There was ink waste and some 55 gallon drums. No one is sure of the timing, but they were discovered by 1983 and cleanup was initiated and completed per the DEQ. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 10 of 26 Chair Unger said that as this opportunity was moving forward, he hoped to learn more about the dust issue. To him, this was the most challenging. They talk about standards and residential opportunities. He asked if they would personally live there knowing what conditions might be. The crust is on top of the loose earth. Mr. Anderson said he would be comfortable living there. He added that there is nothing in the dust that exceeds DEQ standards. It is a nuisance but they have sampled and it is not hazardous. It will take some time to heal this property. Mr. Farrer stated that what he likes about the work plan is the dust monitoring that would occur. This would capture what comes from the west side and goes over to the east side. The concern seems to be about how this could impact people. He would feel comfortable living there if the monitoring is done properly. It can be revisited during development. The plan will capture the information needed. Commissioner DeBone asked for an explanation of diatomaceous earth. Mr. Farrer replied that in its native form is no more hazardous than other types of dirt or dust. People are concerned because it contains silica. If heated, the silica takes on a different form that can be hazardous, similar to asbestos. Either way, the key issue is not having this airborne and inhaled. It is an irritant and could be serious to some people. Commissioner Baney asked how monitoring would be handled. Mr. Anderson said they would use a vacuum system with a filter and analyze what is captured. They have done sampling there and 0.2% is the highest reading, which is a fairly low level. This testing is standard for the industry. He does not remember when this was done, but OSHA did sampling when the mine was active and did not find anything too serious. They have sampled in residential areas. It can be hit and miss as to whether it is a very windy day, but did take ground samples to see what is there as well. Chair Unger wants to talk about the property as a whole. There is a problem when you look at the entire property. He asked when they will address the whole property as you can't consider just a part of it. He has seen pictures of clouds of white dust and he would be upset if he lived there. He asked what the trigger point is. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 11 of 26 Mr. Anderson said that it is visual, and dust control is needed. They get calls on various locations all the time. It is hard to determine what is a nuisance and what is dangerous. Dust can be a problem in other areas as well. When people come into the program, it is typically to get approval for something. The County recognizes that something could be done on the east side to provide a starting point so the owner can do more with the west side. Chair Unger stated that they have indicated there is a plan being reviewed, and he wants to know more about it. He asked if it would create a reasonable solution. Mr. Anderson said it is designed to address some of the gaps and some unknowns. Oregon's cleanup rules allow a certain level that is okay; it does not have to be pristine but needs to be managed. The work plan is adequate for DEQ and OHA. As far as addressing the west side, it may be worth it to address the whole property, but it comes down to cost as well. Part of the work plan development addresses whether they suspect something, and they do not suspect any issues along the river. Some water sampling was done there. A lot of the work plan development is based on what they expect to find. The Wallace work plan may ask for more data on certain things. It is a big site with some unknowns. But most should be addressable, such as the dust issue. Chair Unger asked about the dust from the west that impacts residential areas. He asked where the line is drawn that creates enough of a nuisance to address. Mr. Farrer said if you can see it, it is a nuisance. The type of monitoring will be to address the small particles that are more harmful, and may not always be in a visible dust cloud. The best way they have to address this is through industrial standards. There are federal standards for ambient air particles and that is what would be monitored. Chair Unger stated that what they are looking for and what the agencies do are not always the same. Mr. Groves said the west side is not being investigated at this point, and asked if there are concerns about anything that might not have reached the groundwater. Mr. Anderson replied that much was identified in the past and he thinks they did a good job addressing this in the 1980's. This was resampled in 2008 to 2011 and probably they would have seen it by now. Some of the work proposed through groundwater wells will watch for this. They have not seen anything in the river or the groundwater at this point. There is not a lot of concern regarding the typical things you might see. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 12 of 26 Mr. Wallace stated that this site, with diatomaceous earth by its nature having low permeability, that if there was a surface source of material, it would go through that eventually, but the soil would filter it significantly. The regional aquifer is 200 or more feet down. The groundwater system has been studied considerably and it generally moved towards the river. The water is monitored through wells and springs, and nothing hazardous has been discovered. He feels the potential is very low of pollution from surface activities that happened long ago. Chair Unger noted that this matter is used to filter swimming pools and is effective that way. Mr. Groves said that dust management is part of the cleanup plan. There would be a number of houses out there and perhaps the west side property would be used for another purpose. He asked if the outcome of the voluntary compliance program would be a viable and funded way to deal with future dust issues. He asked if the program will produce something that will address financing and methods to deal with this, or if the Board needs to have independent requirements on the landowner so there is a way to enforce this later, should there be problems. Mr. Anderson said they regulate permitted facilities, but nuisance dust is the County's issue. They are concerned only if it is hazardous. Normally this would fall to a homeowner's agreement. The County can put into place a deed restriction to address this. The DEQ has to tie it to an appropriate remedy. They have not done this in other areas. It is not dissimilar to any area where there are dust issues. Eventually the DEQ will get a call but ultimately if it is just a nuisance, the DEQ won't handle it. Commissioner Baney talked about `fast facts on the Lower Bridge mine' that recaps the history. Airborne dust can cause short-term problems but it was looked at being an `indeterminate' health issue. Mr. Farrer said there was a historical use and there were claims that there were large deposits of the crystalline silica. This has never been found even through bulk testing. They cannot test every square foot. The `indeterminate' wording is because they could not find any deposits of hazardous material. Commissioner Baney noted that there is some diatomaceous earth in the proposed development, and asked how could they would address this. She asked if more sampling should be done. If dust blows onto the development from the west side, people will be concerned. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 13 of 26 Mr. Farrer stated that attempts to keep children and others off the site were due primarily because of the structures or other material that was left there. Most has been removed. Mr. Anderson said that in the context of west to east, they could do more., but if they are balancing the number of samples, there is no way to be absolutely sure. No one wants to create a health hazard. Commissioner Bane said she would like them to do something with a nuisance Y g property. Mr. Farrer said the only issue is inhalation. Any measures to control dust will help. That will mitigate whatever is on the ground. Chair Unger said there have been a lot of residences out there for a long time. You would expect to see evidence from the conditions after all this time. He asked if the OHA would know about this. Mr. Farrer said they would look at silicosis, but that is mostly found in industrial settings. The other would be lung cancer. Silicosis is not a reportable illness to public health. Without a database to track this information, it would be difficult to find this out. There is a state registry for cancer. The problem they often run into is small numbers. It would be hard to say what definitely caused a cancer. This is limited by the few numbers available. He has never seen this line of inquiry before. Commissioner DeBone asked if there are specific areas where they might do more sampling. Mr. Wallace said they analyzed twenty areas where identified in 2007 as areas of concern or further inquiry, based on what was still out there and trying to figure out where activities happened. Phase I does not include sampling, but certain areas were identified and supplemental sampling and analysis was done. Radioactivity, dust particles and other concerns were addressed. Those areas are the focus of the work plan now being reviewed. Mr. Groves said the dust monitoring pulls air in to evaluate. He asked if this would be done at specific times or on a windy day. Mr. Anderson said they can plan around that. Some could be done during periods of work. The bulk sample shows what might blow off the ground. It is hard to know when there is going to be a wind event. Mr. Groves asked if there is not an opportunity to adequately get air samples, can they use samples that might mobilize at suspected trouble locations. Mr. Anderson said that this could be done. Mr. Groves said that since there is a voluntary compliance plan, whether they would be available to help design a sampling protocol if the Board feels it is important. Mr. Anderson said they would support this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 14 of 26 The group took a ten minute break at this time. Some citizens who had signed up to speak offered their time to others. Bend Premier Cardot, e d mier e Real Estate, said he testified previously. He noted that he has been working in that area since 2005 and has seen the changes. It is good to see the more positive economy and see small businesses grow. He has spoken with other real estate agents regarding this area, and some are excited about development in smaller acreages. One exception is Diane Lozito, but she and her husband live across the canyon. He has discussed land use since the early 2000's and think that NIMBY comes into play—where someone moves here, loves it and doesn't want to see change. This area is growing rapidly and not everyone wants to live in the cities. He reviewed the property last week and sees the grass growing now and an incredible property, much better than it was in 2005. He appreciates the new owners trying to get this cleaned up to benefit the community. Chair Unger reminded everyone that time to speak is limited, and everyone is encouraged to submit written documentation. Eva Eagle said she is not part of this neighborhood. On behalf for Oregon Land and Water Alliance, she would like to see the 150 day clock restarted. Not everyone knows this is happening, and it is important to take time to do this. She said she thinks this has implications beyond that area. Approving residential use of land that may not be suitable for it is a problem. They do not know what is on all the property. There have been a lot of promises made, but this applicant has not delivered on many promises over the past several years. She urged that all the properties be cleaned up before habitation occurs. Bruce Bowen stated that he lives in Sisters. He is concerned that this would be risky for the County, and does not want tax money go towards paying off a lawsuit. Some additional sampling is important to figure this out. The risk is high that there could be problems without more information. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 15 of 26 Diane Lozito explained that she lives in the Lower Bridge area and has a home office there. She has dealt with diatomaceous earth dust for 20 years. A lot has been misrepresented. Unlike Dan Cardo, she did her research first. She sold the Poplar Ranch and encourages development, but this is against proper land use. Her suggestions are not just opinions of others. She would never sell property there. Regarding Eagle Crest, that is a different market. Eagle Crest is not near a toxic waste dumpsite. She has 24 reasons to oppose this. (She then read them; a copy is attached for reference) Ms. Lozito showed some oversized documents at this time. She said that Exhibit A is the site, which is a volcanic moonscape. There was a proposal to plant clover and natural grasses, but from 1985 to now, it is almost the same. They were supposed to clean it up. The zoning map shows EFU all around it. There are no other similar developments in the area. It is surrounded by wildlife habitat. Radioactive waste was taken away but Hanford has no record of receiving it. It might still be on the site. The white stuff is the cristobalite, a known carcinogen. There have been dust plumes as recent as October. She and others complained for ten years about the dust. Regarding the lots themselves, one contains a historic site with a 100 foot setback. All four test wells were on the EFU land and not where they would pick anything up. James Taylor stated that a PUD is allowed as a conditional use. That means there are conditions to development, and one is maintaining the rural character and being in harmony with the surroundings. He said they should stop at the top before the hill drops down and look at the property, and imagine 19 homes built there. There is rural character maintained from Terrebonne to Sisters at Lower bridge and Holmes Road. No one says they can't develop their land, since it is zoned RR-10. (He showed an oversized map). The Board has to decide if this PUD maintains the rural character of the area. Rex Barber explained that he is the managing partner of Big Falls Ranch that borders this property. He has spoken in favor of the development as a solution to the problem, which has been an issue for many years with no apparent resolution. There is finally an economic solution to help deal with it. He heard there are 400 acres of crisabolite there, and this is false. This material is made from heating dicalite. He has no knowledge of there being a furnace at the property ever. It was screened, bagged and shipped out as is. Dicalite is not toxic and is registered as a consumer product as a pesticide, even in homes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 16 of 26 The dust is a nuisance, but so are the adjacent farms at the wrong time of the year. The dicalite is no more hazardous than regular dust. Dicalite is an absorbent material, and irritates because it dries things out. That is why it works as an organic pesticide. It is not toxic. He would let his kids go out there. He provided consulting services for the pivot line and the seeding, which has taken hold and he is pleased with the results. He lives in close proximity and knows that occasionally it can be dusty. There is dust from everywhere at times. They can mitigate this to a point, but there is no way to completely eliminate it. Chair Unger said that since Mr. Barber helped to seed the grass, what does he think it will it look like in ten years. Mr. Barber replied that they used native grasses that are acclimated to the dry environment. The dicalite is absorbent and grasses might do better on that ground. Some seeding that was done before was clover, with a tap root. The grasses grow well and die seasonally, and create organic matter that becomes more nutritious to other plants. He feels the grasses will look even better in the future. Kris Kibak stated that since the 1970's, he has lived within a few miles of the site. He purchased some property himself there recently. He is not trying to protect his view, but advocating that the applicant comply with and avoid manipulating the law. The environmental and health concerns are important, including 19 more septic systems. From a legal perspective, there is not enough space to justify that many homes. It would be too dense and they are attempting to use the flood plain as part of this. He walked the site and took pictures also from the river. Up to date Google Earth is revealing. There is a rimrock that is partially obscured by the gravel and sand deposits pushed over the side. This should be clearly defined. Steve Shropshire, attorney, handed out written testimony, and highlighted the tax lot owned by Mr. Kibak, lot 8 in Eagle Rock subdivision. In particular, this proposed PUD is not just any development, but a contorted model to allow for more density. The tentative plat map will line up directly across from Mr. Kibak's property, so one property would be adjacent and negatively affected by a cluster of lots. It is realistic to expect the property would be built upon at some point, but there is concern whether this density is consistent with the rural character of the area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016. Page 17 of 26 He commended staff and the Hearings Officer for an exhaustive amount of work. A lot of code provisions apply and there are deficiencies in the burden of proof. Staff has pointed out the assignments of errors. One big issue is the question about whether 30 acres of floodplain zoned land. should count towards the PUD total acres. A PUD is by its nature is designed to allow for a density bonus to get to one dwelling per each 7.5 acres. By using this, there is a question as to whether it provides even a bigger bonus. If those acres were taken away, this would mean 65% open space, not counting the floodplain. Code does not specifically state this area can be used. In this case, he thinks it can't be counted because it is not specifically stated in that way. Likewise, there is the related issue of the number of dwellings allowed. In this case, staff indicated a text amendment could be available to clear this up. It is clear to him per the Gaines case that plain language rules. It not stated, so in his view it has to be authorized specifically. The applicant said that there is a reason why this makes good sense to them. But they are already allowed to increase density through the PUD process. He has heard a little about rimrock. The Hearings Officer found insufficient evidence showing where the rimrock is. There is a new bit of evidence. There also may be some historic issues as well, but some of this might have been covered up by the previous owners' actions. If the setbacks are pushed back from the river, it might be hard to develop the land without exceptions to the setback rules. New evidence submitted by applicant a licant needs to be reviewed. The environment piece was discussed at great length. There are a couple of new issues. First, what about the water supply. The Hearings Officer determined that the conditional uses require a finding that the proposed development will have adequate services, including water. Individual wells have been proposed. There was a temporary water right for the pivot. The limiting factor for vegetation is water. Newton Consulting has shown that there is an aquifer that produces good water. It is very important to know whether the applicant can legally and physical access ground water. They are not required to have permits for this, but the river is over appropriated already. In this case, there may be additional scrutiny as to whether the wells would support this. He thinks that they might need a full water right. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 18 of 26 The State Scenic Waterway and Wild and Scenic Waterway designations exist along the river. There need to be findings as to whether this development is compatible. Title 18 states that it has to be compatible with the comprehensive plan. It says that the County has a goal of protecting the natural, aesthetic and flow values of the river. It is a special resource. The County is obligated to make sure this is taken into account. There should be a case-by-case review of lands on the river. Based on the need to coordinate the review, this has been given short shrift. He will provide additional evidence on these issues. David Boyer said he lives nearby, and is opposed to the project because of the risk of human exposure to chemicals and others toxins. Diatomaceous earth problems continue. He believes a subdivision is not compatible, and is out of character. Minimum lot sizes are 10 to 20 acres. Otherwise, this will expose other residents to light and glare. It is also inconsistent with the wildlife areas and the scenic rivers designation. He is providing a letter of comment on this. He walked along the site and took photos. Some of the rimrock is in excess of 45 degrees, so an independent rimrock survey needs to be prepared. If the project is approved, he wants to see them adopt the 24 conditions of approval from the Hearings Officer's decision. Merry Ann Moore of Sisters thinks this is an alarming proposal. She has concerns regarding wildlife, water and toxins. She lives in 19 lot subdivision that was a PUD, and the homes are close to each other. She struggles with the idea of septic systems so close to domestic wells. Where she lives, they have a community well for that reason. She agrees with the Hearings Officer on the flood plain. A lot of maps in this County date back ten or twenty years, like the wildlife combining zone map. She suggested that the concern of harmful dust has not been sufficiently addressed. This does not speak well for the applicant, as this should be remedied before any final plat. If she was a homeowner buying there, she would be worried about future mining to the west. There is too little known about groundwater and soil contamination, and more testing needs to happen. Monitoring has not been done sufficiently, and they should do this first. In terms of water availability, the Newton report shows the potential draw. Test wells should be placed first where the homes will be to make sure there is enough, as there could be a miscalculation of the maximum daily water needed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 19 of 26 There are impacts to wildlife and birds to consider. If someone spends some time there, they will see it is a special place. It is unwise to approve this project, and she supports the Hearings Officer's decision. The Hearings Officer seems to be getting overturned on this project. Liz Dickson, attorney for 28 property owners called the Friends of Lower Bridge, said they are opposed to the development. Some were around in 2008, and a few spoke today. She presented letters from 20 owners and one from Nunzie Gould. Split zoning is a big question. The County has made decisions over the years about what should go where. The floodplain delineation is FEMA based. Staff has advised where the line is and how to fix it. It is not up to the Board to change how floodplains are addressed. There is the issue of CCR's. No one talked about these details, but she read them. There should be disclosures regarding the history of the area and the 2008 decision, but these are not included. Also, 80% of the property owners can change things if they want. When a property owner says it will be in the CCR's, it needs to be there. CCR's can change over time as well. There is the issue of environmental impacts. She keeps hearing that the owner had no money to do clean up, but spent $1.3 million on lawyers and consultants to get to this point. It should have been used for cleanup. There are questions regarding site evaluations. She heard similar questions before. She looked at the history and found that the evaluations that were done were at best opportunistic. There is a well test on EFU land that is up-water. Dust testing was done when the air was still. All the way through this process, they went through the motions but did not lay out a grid and plan out sampling. Cristobalite looks like diatomaceous earth, although they have a different feel. You don't know what it is. The DEQ and OHA work on a need to respond basis. Her clients can't go out there, as it would be trespassing. Evaluation needs to be done on a grid format and not through spot checking. They just don't have necessary information. There have been discussion regarding silicosis and others issues. They need to spend some time looking at what diatomaceous earth is. It works as a pesticide because it dries out insects and they die. Cristobalite is entirely different. It was used as asbestos would be. It was cooked on that site for almost 100 years and was not regulated. There was no reporting. There is no way of looking at the site and knowing exactly what is there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 20 of 26 Cristobalite can cause cancer like asbestos does. They don't know how much is still left there. Scott Wallace talked about diatomaceous earth and permeability, and said it works like a filter. She disagrees. The reason they did not store radioactive material there is because of the structure of the earth. The area is fractured and those fractures go deep into the ground. Diatomaceous earth is a far cry from being a filter. She stated that staff asked about the monitoring. The old DEQ reports had a lot more information available. She notes that maybe they don't have the same staffing level anymore. This is an unusual application with a variety of criteria. The land has an assortment of zones and special considerations. It is critical to pick this up where it left off and carry it forward from there. New information has been added, so she asked for the record to be left open for at least two weeks after the site visit. In regard to the 2008 conditions of approval, the DEQ supposedly provided a no further action required letter. If there was an OHA letter, you don't have it. There needs to be a conservation dedication and proper CCR's disclosing the history. This is enough of a reason to deny, or ask for more conditions of approval. The Board does not have the DEQ and OHA work plan results. The staff report says that the applicant is working with the DEQ on this. This is not the level of assurances the voters want. The last clear opinion from DEQ and OHA is from 2014. The Newton Consultants' report is referenced. The DEQ is hopeful, and. says that the Newton study requires sampling during a different season when the water levels are higher; and dust is to be addressed explicitly and thoroughly. The west parcel will impact the east and has to be considered. They talked about a 1987 EPA `no further action' recommendation and a DEQ letter that spoke about industrial uses, not residential. The DEQ and OHA said that they now require a higher standard of cleanup and a new NFA would be required. The Board needs to know that where kids are playing is safe. Cristobalite was cooked there, and radioactive waste was stored there. The applicant needs to do a grid analysis of the entire property or explain where it all went in 1985 to 1989, when the site went from being reserve to active. A conditional use was pending removal of contaminants. They need to get these things done. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 21 of 26 The applicant has received two extensions. How many will be allowed? Title 18 holds the code provisions that are not being met. The EFU land is a problem and is not allowed as part of a PUD. The northern portion still exists and cannot be within the PUD. The floodplain does not allow for it to be part of a PUD. Floodplains are for riparian reasons and preserving rivers and wildlife. Significant scenic and wildlife features need to be balanced with the public interest. They said they are selling the east lots so they can clean up part of the west lots. Buyers are not going to be interested in this. If they need all 19 lots, how much money do they need to clean up and how long would it take. Any buyers need to know that it is safe. Open space talks about conserving or enhancing. Also, the water supply could. be at risk. The conclusion is that the rules don't allow the use of floodplain in the PUD, or for anything. Rural residential standards, RR-10, has allowed for PUDs, but PUDs are odd with higher levels of scrutiny. ft is urban-type development in a rural area. Everyone on the other side of the rim will see houses all along it. It is not compatible or harmonious with the area. This needs to be carefully considered. Setbacks may not allow a feasible building envelope. They chose lots 2 or 4 as samples, but they need to show that it is okay on all of the lots. Otherwise, people will be asking for a variance. The conditional use approval issue is central. The site has to be evaluated; their configuration is not suitable. Having 19 homes lined up along the rim is not harmonious or compatible. She understands them wanting to provide water and river views, but this is not part of the criteria. It needs to be what works for the area at large. Doing this would be illegal. Manmade hazards on or near the site are critical. Code says that if you have this kind of situation, it is not suitable as a conditional use. Most of the conduct on the site, starting in the 1920's, was not regulated and no requirements were applied until the 1980's. The applicant needs to answer these questions thoroughly. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 22 of 26 In the 1980's there were violations of environmental law. Hazmat storage was there and cristobalite processed on site, and radioactive material was stored there for a period of time. The Board is kind enough to ask the same questions over and over, but at some point the owners have to come up with solid. answers. It is time to take a firmer approach. They have not even said if they are done mining part of the property. They could sell it to others as well. The Hearings Officer brought this up, and it is critical to have the answers. Water quality is critical. They drilled one well, but this is not an answer for water quality questions. They have to be compatible with surrounding uses. RR-10 makes sense. This doesn't as it does not look like anything in the area. ESEE impacts need to be looked at as well. Environmental threats to human health are at the top of this. There is an old sign sprayed on rock which is considered historical, so lot #1 does not fit. The proposal is not compliant with code or the comprehensive plan. The Board is being asked to approve this without having all the proper information. If it is approved, it needs to be done much more strongly and under more scrutiny than before. She referred to a photo taken by Diane Lozito taken in October, showing the site. She appreciates Mr. Barber's comments, but this is a very dusty site. It has not been reclaimed. These people are not NIMBYs. They understand there will be development, but want it to be the right kind. Carol Macbeth of Central Oregon Landwatch said she echoes Ms. Dickson's comments and does not think this proposal complies with code. The density on the top of the plateau would be too extreme. From the wildlife perspective, the Oregon Department of Fish & Wi8ldlife is always concerned about development at the edge of rimrock. One house per ten acres would maintain better density. Development is not allowed in the floodplain zone for wildlife reasons. $78 million comes to the County each year just from wildlife activities, so this is important economically. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 23 of 26 For rebuttal, Tia Lewis stated that what is allowed outright or conditionally in a floodplain is open space. If they did not cluster these homes, they could have 15 properties that go down to the river's centerline. This would allow more residential type use. The density bonus by counting the floodplain would allow for four more lots, to preserve 65 acres of open space. This has been surveyed as to gross acreage. They could get to 15 lots without the PUD. The only thing that is conditional is the density increase. Developing 15 RR-10 lots is an outright use. They have a State waterways permit and will seek others as needed for the structures through State Parks. Oregon Water Resources has information on the exempt wells. The setbacks are not for landscape management review, but to address the Hearings Officer's concerns whether all dwellings can be located as proposed. All will go through landscape management review. The CCR's are in draft form and they are seeking input. What is important is the timing. Conditions of approval are on a schedule per requirements. They have undertaken this. They are not asking for final plat approval and will have all conditions addressed before final approval. This is all sequenced. It will all be part of the work plan. The DEQ could ask for more monitoring or having it be done at different times or locations. They do not object to the record remaining open for the month. Jeff Daniels, property owner, stated that he appreciates the Board hearing this. He is reminded that it has been a long time. He has tried to be patient but it is difficult. In 2008, some decisions were made around a core issue of a problem property. It was a concern for the area, and he took on the challenge to try to solve the problem. He is still doing this. His approach is that life is a series of compromises. It is important that they follow through on their commitments and hope that the County does the same. Commissioner Baney would like to learn more about the cristobalite and whether it is known if was processed or cooked on site. Mr. Groves asked whether the record is going to be left open and for how long. Chair Unger asked if the record would be left open through January 29. Mr. Groves said that they could leave the oral record open until the site visit has taken place; and close the written record after that. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 24 of 26 The oral record will be left open until 5 p.m. on January 20 to allow for the site visit and staff report. Ms. Lewis was agreeable to this. The written record would be left open until January 29, with rebuttal until February 5 and final arguments on February 12. Mr. Groves encouraged the submittal of written documents; or electronic information allowing plenty of time to confirm it was received as required. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 94-1 County Service District. There were no vouchers presented to the Board for approval today. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENS1ON/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District. There were no vouchers presented to the Board for approval today. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County. There were no vouchers presented to the Board for approval today. 15. OTHER ITEMS None were offered. 16. ADJOURN Being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 25 of 26 DATED this / 3 Day of 2016 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissions . Am. I/Art-- Alan Unger, Chair Tammy Baney, Vid�Chair ATTEST: -) -- Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 26 of 26 U�JTE5e 0 p/ '' { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960 k\ ,, , (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2016 Commissioners'Hearing Room-Administration Building- 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered or discussed at the meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional subjects. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. This meeting is open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend. Business Meetings are usually recorded on video and audio, and can be viewed by the public live or at a later date; and written minutes are taken for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents,photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing,please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 1 of 6 CONSENT AGENDA 4. Board Signature of Order No. 2016-001, Authorizing the Disposal of Three Surplus Vehicles through Auction (Sheriff's Office) 5. Board Signature of Document No. 2016-004, Real Property Lease for Sheriff's Substation in Terrebonne 6. Board Signature of Minutes: • Work Sessions of December 21 and 28, 2015 ▪ Business Meetings of December 21 and 28, 2015 ACTION ITEMS 7. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Document No. 2016-013, a Notice of Intent to Award Contracts Letter to the Qualified Contractor Pool for Fuels Reduction Services —Ed Keith, Forester Suggested Action: Move approval of Document No. 2016-013. 8. CONSIDERATION of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-001, a Plan Amendment from Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial Exception Area (Deschutes Junction - Aceti) —Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Suggested Actions: Conduct second reading by title only; move adoption. 9. CONSIDERATION of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-002, a Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial Exception Area (Deschutes Junction - Aceti) —Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Suggested Actions: Conduct second reading by title only; move adoption. 10. CONSIDERATION of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-003, a Text Amendment regarding Deschutes County Code Title 18 to Modify DCC 18.113.060, Standards for Destination Resorts (Eagle Crest) —Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Suggested Actions: Conduct second reading by title only; move adoption. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 2 of 6 11. A PUBLIC HEARING (De Novo) on a Conditional Use, Tentative Subdivision Plan and Site Plan Approval on a Lower Bridge Planned Unit Development — Will Groves, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open hearing and take testimony. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 14. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 15. OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b),personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. 16. ADJOURN Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 3 of 6 To watch this meeting on line, go to: http://www.deschutes.orq/bcc/page/board-meetinq-videos Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and oilactivities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541)617-4747, or email ken.harms @deschutes.org. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note:Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners'meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting,please call 388-6572.) Friday, January 1 Most County offices will be closed to observe New Years'Day. Monday, January 4 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, January 6 1 0:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 6:00 p.m. Continued Public Hearing on Goal 11 Options—La Pine High School Wednesday, January 13 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Friday, January 15 7:30 a.m. Joint Meeting with La Pine and Sunriver Chambers of Commerce, at 1,000 Trails Monday, January 18 Most County offices will be closed to observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Tuesday, January 19 10:00 a.m. 911 User Board Meeting, at 911 Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Wednesday, January 20 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Friday, January 22 8 a.m. Board Annual Retreat, at Deschutes Historical Society Conference Room Monday, January 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, January 27 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, February 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, February 2 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of Public Safety Coordinating Council Wednesday, February 3 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, February 10 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, February 15 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 5of6 Tuesday, January 16 10:00 a.m. 911 User Board Meeting, at 911 Monday, February 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, February 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, February Februar 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, March 1 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of Public Safety Coordinating Council Wednesday, March 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, March 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session---could include executive session(s) , Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541)617-4747, or email �c�® ken.harm sndeschutes.orq. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 6 of 6 ,o-v7' Q/ X BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING r ' REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest .,,a r)2.,) c tJ 0 i Date / 1 '/0 1 Name Aij C A '. o 1,T) Address 1 1 c u a C 1*4_-✓1.,. L L c= Liu Phone #s SL-'-(1( - y ,c- Z cl E-mail address c q_n t �� „0, t'- CJ e,l4�) `'' / ,t:,l J K In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [ j Yes I i I No oci Air 0� . a f , BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest L 6 cv`z- t 1C r ' ,.7 Date /7 Name =-v'\ C% I--.`L Address \ -1 Z I v' ( V`z_ i z- Phone #s S 1 1 - ...c-c1 i - . 3 E-mail address c1 1 jcam,- C'41 L 0 vvv c f, In Favor , Neutral/Undecided � Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? L/ Yes No TE, 1f,c•, ,, { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Item of Interest Pgrk i( C-fr_a�(1. L of t.)+ i TT Date In" l(, d Name 3 (A-CE- u � t Address VI 2-.1 Z ?r rS -E41 S Phone#s E-mail address bb poi rl-i e-5 C.C , C am. In Favor Neutral/Undecided [ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? U Yes [ No ,0-0 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest LIs Date l //� Name Address ( V /lam 1:)( 1_ � � Phone #s ( - )= clY. E-mail address 32/1.L.-ITZU___14/n‘91PLP-e In Favor Neutral/Undecided IX Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes _ No l,,r ,, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest W\n1, s'Pt 06— Date I2- Name .J M u-S TA-Lt Leg— Address -16,9 S P4 9 S '2'—' sr - -- -1 7C,0 Phone #s 601 53 ( 9t9 °) E-mail address ,j 4.t (473 t • c v r►•% In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [X Yes No 8r , 2 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest &pW ffiry � e.6 J i 4i22 R elk Date Name be,ek (z� � Address 70170 A LczletigI'iivl '- a re/ I,? Phone #s ,5-9/- 198 .6 3r),( E-mail address ki 74'0 C.; � 49e7,/,( e,-,77 kIn Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [ 1 Yes 3 No oa { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK ` I 26 )1 Agenda Item of Interest gy ` ;, „;, Date Name y , , ,) Address `6 \a0 � L . �-- Phone #s A _. J 3 E-mail address �r 5 , �`\O c,- y t� r r y( c; �. . CCVL, In Favor Neutral/Undecided [j Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No cy/4 { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING --_ REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest frii 77 -- f vP,. I k c., Date 1/, Name 5fa/E �1-iRoPI-t Ire Address 31-J r3 6-t•-1 i i Si 10 I�Di. j OR 9-17o2 Phone #s Z1,2 5-4-1 Li 7 29 7 E-mail address 51-e-ve roe S\,rt rjA,c,t0„-, In Favor Neutral/Undecided 'F. Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? r Yes No wv��,r��y � ' N,rocil BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest 1-4 1 - I ;!'' Date Name h O Address 6C I W e1 3 cc-: )Cti ( n t . , Phone #s ' ( - y '3 '? 0 9 (r E-mail address cv k�( • -� c'\'` ("G In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes L 1 No ctoocEs %<,:„z='< BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest I / ' (),)\,7 , r Date I ( Name k) R t C` l,C_ Address L L c.1) c_1; j le s re_V.)o ( ` - 76, a Phone #s .3 0 t t 6 1 (v E-mail address l IL i c lL c.1 LDC) C..(WA In Favor [ 1 Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ` Yes No G'r4' & �C o G BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ' ` - :', IT _ ' c s Date/ , / Name - q k C c-LGQ. B Address 6^`Z?q(_C-L Co advict, RS -<- :, , -+- a ; - ( Phone #s 5 '(I S 4{ ? '1/ y -] E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? FKres No GJ CEs �� n/e __.. ._.. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest I r t Date 10/1 f p Name T>i,y, G eb c� ur v-- Address F:Q1) Nkok) Secik, T l vve— to V\,--e `0 (`L 9110 Phone #s `J g ( - 1,11 " 41 S Z E-mail address AO e.1514 C...,109 r ChA _ In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ><Y\es No teay. CU ofd- ,,, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest !--C' New" \='IC( Date IL Name ' f\o.-^r- 19\x1 r\ 0 f_ Address (_-) c12 Z.`� 2 1`�-.5 1'x`1` b S‘ crq 1 Phone #s cj`_` b E-mail address .} Z n 0-1 a ? + ' (Q t"-) In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? fl Yes No g 4471" BOARD_OF COMMISSIONERS'.MEE TING_ ........_ ..._....._.._. 4 REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ( ii f, �?, Date f , (a, ( Name Z ',i'w 5064.-41-k or oign c; Address Phone #s "„)t f E-mail address ,,,e` pf , ( In Favor 1 Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? r Yes No ry rj �� Z BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest k � Date I z c%i Name 1_ ,,c� V c S — Address Phone #s - E-mail address L u . c._�, In Favor j Neutral/Undecided I/ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? `f Yes No /04743:1-- i,+'o4c { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest t/i \31(Cki�— _ Date-0--r\ ,2-17, Name — -- VV,e-GA-A4025dS Address g t�k � e_ Phone #s 54A, %-2-3 E-mail address t l a-W ✓ k ccorl In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No Q o, Z BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING i REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest /...-064(14. //3 , Date /(F ,,-)Name �_�Q.i+,Lt.L� L.m..0-1- Address (ect cj Ai CU a"5 L/la4 Jb0 , -1.40 j (3 q --) ` CMG Phone #s g - 6/30 - s7 `i I E-mail address )i a,z N�.kj f . cd, ,.,, _ \,_/ In Favor Neutral/Undecided FVOpposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No c,fK ; - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest L4 I ),/\-A--(k--(;)-(.. Date I I u r Z Name ` ' c∎ 1_) .z:-ti.-G� Address b S. 2 5 ht W' 6,i -..,.. Phone#s 5L--1 l - 5 L-I S _ 5 l / E-mail address -6�- 5 j e `( ec L. e b m Y- . i` 6� ■ . In Favor U Neutral/Undecided 7'\ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? \` ' Yes No 0,-Es c ❑e'Oev ; , BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest 611'd_ Date 1)‘. ii Name ( Dr 1A, l Address l vr'r e_ , C� �� Q G 0 Phone#s r_, I 138 E-mail address fut.( e -(1) - Co wt In Favor n Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Wes n No fhp i c 2 efe , BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest 4--(A1-61/Z '331 Gt Date I — 6 --{ Name VA C I C.�k 9 Address 1°` b ' 1x 1 e - e 1-7W7r Phone #s 5j- 9 CO E-mail address V/r 9 -17--eAki6oki Int In Favor Neutral/Undecided pposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony. Yes { No .)' cp 1,,r - - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING N .- REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Z.13---z/V-e-R. B2-L 06- -- Date V4 / 15.. Name a 1 jJ 0 5 6 MDADIQ2 ? Address 7( 7 5 /t (, i 3 - I-45 —C E-6 auA Ok X 776D Phone #s 5 4 t — 5-04 - i i) E-mail address C 15-L7,5 (i-ib. C -v` ( /f In Favor Neutral/Undecided X0F15osed .5<- Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No 01„_,"rEt; c o Qr0 Z BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING , REQUEST TO SPEAK ,)(ii L C C Agenda Item of Interest 1 g ��� , ,;� �, y ,,� � Date ,`” 4 I( . Name kkx\z (= 0_, _.. Address Phone #s L(/- 1-/ L) _ N) Z - E-mail address .e alk.c&. 6 /27 )72-L7 In Favor Neutral/Undecided is Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No vrEa D,9; ►;-{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK /1/ Agenda Item of Interest G�rfv.� G�� ' Date '/ '/ zi e Name Address `( Aiovi (7 Phone #s 1' I `P# > E-mail address 4i y i i4 pi f M flIn Favor Neutral/Undecided ,' Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes n No ,f - { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK 0-) Agenda Item of Interest I a I-, Date V.6 h;_, �' Name .—lo/ Address 7 () //g), $,�=� P I , G'AJA 1)g_ (1166% Phone #s 6-C p g. X L I -�s N I E-mail address -f ik7 in c r- v n-6 , c Oh ti In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No U O` z BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING '" REQUEST TO SPEAK ,r Agenda Item of Interest ` I '% _ Date (1(,i'Zv l�L Name 4R ebe crt o?I, Address g(a(`), /U& ) g`? p( , _ Te rre.L) or►yl.A., O7-- qq 0o Phone #s 5e1/ (-1 -7. 111 ( E-mail address irbOT r40 Cbb?pl 1, 1.6)-v In Favor Neutral/Undecided X Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes XNo PA (k_s., ' .-7 --)IP/ i-C I ., / ,t,`_ 6 i(- / 5 � �. �? � iii L J �i, A 7,-,/ 1 A,-. --((--, Lir-7( /i_ '^/ I / `/. C / A 6-3-i) e___, cz____?(---k.6,1`-eA- tz--7/1.14-1 C -,- 6..\'-i) „/ Oirj2'Ce-e'7( ) • 71S22131NI d0 Al2IVd V AS 03AO2lddb A13 Il SS31Nl ONIlIVW 2l3 JV ' ba 3A13M1 1YNld S3INO338 NOISI33a SIHJ Jea!J40 sAli tft aaae 'H uaaey! • '1.•"PtelIA/ 91,0Z 'io'wa}das}o Aep 4 s!g} pal1evi 60Z `Jagweldas p• Aep g}t s!y} p- ea p!on aq !legs lenoid•- s!g} JO `apoD A}unoa sa}ng sea ag} }o ZZ al}!1 • suo!s!no.J• au} gip aouepaooa. Li! uo!s!aap s!g},u! lenoadde a } 40 uo!sua}xa ue uie}•• JO '!eu!l sawooaq uo!s!aap s!g} a}ep ag} 4o sJee (Z) onn} u!g}M uo!s!n!a 6u!uueld A}un. sa}n 'sea ag} uaoaj lenoadde }eld !eq. ao} Aidd= pue !ems de }o Suol}!puoo ile a}aid -us Jaunnofueo!idde agl •£t, :1VAO2lddV d0 NOI1V' If1 a•-,,,,),4}%,, o111 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING __ . REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Ld\It 2'r �Q p,A Date 1 1 (I) i I 5:0 _ Name 6-o-cj D N n ` Address r7 n 14. L A 6V) j h i "6Af,( cog Phone #s 5123 II' \ \ cA ( P) E-mail address gi !' - liA / i \ - 0 ., - i 0, yiIn Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No _ _______ _ _ __ Community Development Department 0 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: January 4, 2016 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner RE: Hearing on Lower Bridge Road, LLC appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision. File Nos. 247-15-000194-CU, 247-15-000195-TP (247-15-000521-A) Before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is an appeal filed by Lower Bridge Road, LLC. The appeal is submitted in response to a Deschutes County Hearings Officer's decision that a proposed Planned Unit Development subdivision does not comply with all applicable regulations. By Order 2015-467, dated October 19, 2015, the BOCC initiated review of this application under DCC 22.28.050 through a de novo hearing. BACKGROUND The applicant, Lower Bridge Road, LLC, requested conditional use, tentative subdivision plan, and SMIA site plan approval to establish a 19-lot residential planned development on three parcels totaling 157 acres, zoned RR-10, EFU, FP, LM, and SMIA, and located between the Deschutes River and Lower Bridge Way west of Terrebonne. The Hearings Officer issued a decision on September 11, 2015 finding that the proposal does not comply with all applicable regulations. On September 23, 2015 Lower Bridge Road, LLC appealed the decision to the BOCC. APPEAL The notice of appeal describes several assignment of error. These are summarized below, with references to those pages within the decision where the Hearings Officer addressed the issue. Staff has also included selected quotes from the HO decision addressing the error at issue. 1. The Hearings Officer erred when she concluded the provisions of the EFU zone in Chapter 18.16 preclude the proposed subdivision. H.O. Decision, pp. 10-13: "The applicant proposes to include the EFU-zoned area as part of PUD open space Tract B. Quality Services Performed with Pride The Hearings Officer finds subdivisions and PUDs are not uses permitted outright or conditionally in the EFU Zone. The applicant appears to argue that because the EFU-zoned area will be included in an open space tract and may be engaged in agricultural use, it can be included in the PUD. I disagree. While agricultural use is consistent with this area's zoning, including it within a subdivision is not." 2. The Hearings Officer erred when she concluded the provisions of the FP zone in Chapter 18.96 preclude the proposed subdivision. H.O. Decision, pp.13-21: "Neither"cluster development" nor"planned development" is a use permitted outright or conditionally in the FP Zone. The Hearings Officer finds the text and context of the provisions of Title 18 defining and governing the three types of subdivisions make clear they have different characteristics and are intended to be reviewed and approved under different substantive standards. While it may seem counterintuitive not to permit use of FP-zoned land for open space within a planned development where such use would protect these areas consistent with the purpose of the FP Zone, I find the plain language of the FP Zone does not allow such development." 3. The Hearings Officer erred when she concluded the FP zoned property could not be included in the overall acreage calculation for the proposed subdivision. H.O. Decision, pp. 13-21: "The property is approximately 157 acres in size. The applicant's density calculation does not include the 10.4 acres of EFU-zoned land, leaving 146.6 developable acres and resulting in a density of one dwelling per 7.7 acres, less than the maximum density allowed by this paragraph. However, as discussed in the findings above under the FP Zone, the Hearings Officer has found the proposed PUD is not a use permitted outright or conditionally in that zone. Therefore, I find the approximately 30 acres of FP- zoned land included in the subject property cannot be included in the density calculation, leaving approximately 116 acres of developable land for the PUD." 4. The Hearings Officer erred when she concluded the open space as a part of the proposed subdivision was not allowed in the FP zone. H.O. Decision, pp. 14-16. "The Hearings Officer finds that although "open space" is listed as an outright permitted use in the FP Zone, and the proposed CC&Rs provide protection for such areas consistent with the purpose of the FP Zone, the applicant's proposed open space is not a stand-alone use. Rather, it consists of open space lots and uses within a PUD which is not a use permitted outright in the FP Zone." File Nos.247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP(247-15-000521-A) Page 2 of 8 5. The Hearings Officer erred in imposing the FP zone boundary on this property because the map the County uses to establish the boundary is grossly inaccurate, was not established by the Flood Insurance Study for Deschutes County, and is in fact, not based on any base flood elevation data or other detailed or scientific method of study. Staff note: The Hearings Officer did not specifically address this point. The flood plain in the project vicinity is an "unnumbered A zone", meaning that flood areas were designated without detailed flood calculations or detailed local topographic information, due to the low density of development in the area. This issue arises nation wide and FEMA has a technical bulletin directing how to refine the flood plain in this case. The applicant was provided with this information in a pre-application meeting and declined to use any of the FEMA accepted methodologies for refining flood plain boundaries. 6. The Hearings Officer erred when she concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate it was feasible to construct a dwelling, septic and well without the need for a rimrock setback exception or that it is feasible to qualify for future rimrock setback exceptions. H.O. Decision, p.39. "The Hearings Officer finds that without the lot-specific rimrock survey recommended by staff, the applicant has not demonstrated that each lot can be developed with a dwelling, on-site septic system and individual well in a manner that assures the dwelling is at least 50 feet from any rimrock, and that all other yard and setback requirements in the LM Zone can be met." 7. The Hearings Officer erred in interpreting the Code to require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with LM review criteria at the subdivision stage when no structures are proposed. H.O. Decision, pp.32-39. "The applicant did not propose dwellings concurrent with its PUD application, and did not submit an application for LM site plan review. However, staff concluded, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that review of the proposed PUD should include findings as to whether the location, size and configuration of the PUD residential lots will permit the future siting of dwellings in compliance with LM site plan approval criteria." 8. The Hearings Officer erred in concluding the properly should not be eligible for any rimrock setback exceptions in the future. H.O. Decision, p. 40. Staff note: Staff believes the applicant misreads the Hearings Officer's decision on this issue. Staff believes the Hearings Officer did not preclude rimrock exceptions (see proposed condition of approval #34) but, rather, found that creation of new lots that could only be developed under a rimrock setback exception was unsuitable, when alternate subdivisions layouts were feasible. The Hearings Officer only required that the File Nos.247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP(247-15-000521-A) Page 3 of 8 applicant demonstrate the lots could be developed without a rimrock exception. 9. The Hearings Officer erred in failing to apply the conditional use criteria to the only portion of the development that is conditional, which is not the residential use but instead the difference between 15 homesites and 19 homesites, or essentially 4 additional homesites. H.O. Decision, pp. 41-70. "The Hearings Officer finds the general conditional use approval criteria apply because the applicant's proposal is for a PUD and not for an individual single-family dwelling." Staff note: The proposed use, PUD, is a conditional use in the zone. Because some other similar use (non-clustered subdivision) is allowed outright in the zone does not make some portion of the proposed conditional use not conditional. All of the proposed lots are designed and sited in a manner only allowed under the PUD standards. 10. The Hearings Officer erred when she concluded the proposal did not meet the conditional use criteria at 18.128.015 and 18.128.210 and the subdivision criteria at 17.36.170 because the applicant failed to demonstrate the proposed lots are of adequate size and dimensions to accommodate a dwelling, septic and well while complying with all setbacks. H.O. Decision, pp. 43, 62, 87. "...the applicant has proposed "special setbacks" for dwellings that the Hearings Officer has found are not adequate to assure each proposed dwelling would meet the 50-foot rimrock setback, or that each residential lot is large enough, or has the configuration necessary, to permit the future siting of a dwelling, on-site septic system and individual well and still comply with all yard and setback requirements." Staff note: Staff believes a building envelope figure showing the developable area of each lot, considering these factors, may help to demonstrate compliance with the relevant criteria. 11. The Hearings Officer erred in interpreting the suitability criteria for a conditional use and the planned development criteria to apply to residential use, rather than the 4 additional homesites which constitute the conditional part of the use. H.O. Decision, pp.47-70. Staff note: The Hearings Officer found all aspects of the PUD were part of the conditional use. The Applicant erroneously assumes residential use of the property is allowed outright. It is not. The outright use is one single family dwelling. Also, because some other similar use (non-clustered subdivision) is allowed outright in the zone does not make some portion of the proposed conditional use not conditional. All of the proposed lots are designed and sited in a manner only allowed under the PUD standards. File Nos.247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP(247-15-000521-A) Page 4 of 8 12. The Hearings Officer erred when she collaterally attacked the BOCC's prior decision and found the BOCC improperly substituted a condition of approval for the necessary findings of compliance in the prior zone change decision. H.O. Decision, p. 47. "The record for this PUD application includes conflicting evidence, some of it quite technical, concerning whether the subject property is suitable for residential development considering environmental impacts from previous mining and hazardous materials storage. The Hearings Officer finds that under Rhyne, I do not have the option of deferring findings of compliance with the "suitability" conditional use approval criterion to final plat approval as suggested by the applicant." Staff note: Staff believes the Hearings Officer's decision is not a collateral attack' on the plan amendment/zone change (ZC/PA). While the Hearings Officer found that BOCC's approach to deferring findings of environmental safety was likely impermissible under existing case law, no change to the ZC/PA was imposed. Nothing precludes the Hearings Officer or BOCC from imposing additional restrictions, beyond those in the ZC/PA, on the proposed PUD. 13. The Hearings Officer erred when she concluded the revegetating efforts had not been successful in securing the blowing DE dust. H.O. Decision, pp. 52-54. "Although the applicant states its dust control measures on SM Site 461 "were successful," the Hearings Officer's site visit observations indicate the opposite. I observed that on much of SM Site 461 the introduced vegetation has not taken hold, and as a result large areas of diatomaceous earth remain exposed." 14. The Hearings Officer erred in concluding the proposal was not compatible with the current and future use of SM Site 461. H.O. Decision, p. 61. 15. The Hearings Officer erred in concluding the proposal was not in harmony with the surrounding area its potential future use based on conflicts between existing and potential conditions and uses on SM Site 461. H.O. Decision, p. 67. 16. The Hearings Officer erred in concluding the proposal was not in harmony with the surrounding area its potential future use based on conflicts between existing and potential conditions and uses on SM Site 461. H.O. Decision, p. 67. "... because both SM Sites 322 and 461 are zoned SM and remain on the county's inventory of significant mineral and aggregate sites, the Hearings Officer finds projected uses on these parcels include potential future surface mining. ' Collateral Attack-An attempt to impeach or overturn a judgment rendered in a judicial proceeding, made in a proceeding other than within the original action or an appeal from it. http://legal- dictionary.thefreedictionarv.com/Collateral+Attack File Nos.247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP(247-15-000521-A) Page 5 of 8 ...the Hearings Officer has found the applicant has failed to demonstrate the subject property is suitable for the proposed PUD considering potential human health impacts on PUD residences from exposure to blowing DE dust from SM Site 461 and the portion of the subject property located west of Lower Bridge Way, both in their current condition and with future mining activity. ...the proposed PUD will not be compatible with the current and future use of SM Site 461." 17. The Hearings Officer erred in concluding it is appropriate to require the applicant to post a bond or other form of security to assure the DE dust issues on SM Site 461 and the subject property are fully remediated before any dwellings are constructed. H.O. Decision, p. 68. "I find that in the absence of any requirement in the board's 2008 decision that the applicant complete and pay for such remediation, and any commitment on the applicant's part to do so in as part of this application, I find it is appropriate to require the applicant to post a bond or other form of security acceptable to Deschutes County to assure the DE dust issues on SM Site 461 and the subject property are fully remediated before any dwellings are constructed on the subject property." ...Unfortunately, there is no evidence in this record as to the P otential cost of remediating the DE Dust on these properties. However, as discussed above, the June 22, 2015 Wallace Group geotechnical report discussed in the findings above memo recommended dust control measures including spraying the ground surface with water prior to site grading and road building, and/or covering the diatomite with three to six inches of sand and gravel. The Hearings Officer finds it is feasible to arrive at a reasonable cost estimate for covering exposed DE on SM Site 461, and spraying and covering DE on the subject property. Therefore, I find that if the proposed PUD is approved on appeal, it should be subject to a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide cash or a performance bond in favor of Deschutes County, and acceptable to Deschutes County Legal Counsel, for the cost of remediating DE dust on SM Site 461 and the subject property, in an amount to be identified by the applicant and approved by the board, prior to any grading or construction on the subject property. The bond shall be redeemable by the county if the applicant fails to complete the DE remediation identified as necessary for SM Site 461 and the subject property by the Wallace Group report." 18. The Hearings Officer erred in concluding there was not sufficient evidence of financing to assure the proposed development will be substantially completed within 4 years of approval. H.O. Decision, p.69. "The applicant's burden of proof states "sufficient funding is available to complete the development as proposed within four File Nos.247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP(247-15-000521-A) Page 6 of 8 years of approval." However, the applicant did not submit any evidence supporting this statement. The Hearings Officer finds a simple conclusory statement does not constitute sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with this conditional use approval criterion." 19. The Hearings Officer erred in concluding the proposal did not comply with DCC 17.16.100(3)(c) because she incorrectly concluded the proposal was not permitted in the EFU and FP zones. H.O. Decision, pp. 78-79. Staff Note: This conclusion is a consequence of findings in the FP and EFU zones, discussed above, and will be sustained, modified, or revered based on the BOCC's findings on those issues. 20. The Hearings Officer erred in concluding the applicant should be required to improve the abutting segment of Lower Bridge Way to County standards. The impacts of the proposal to add traffic associated with 19 residential lots is not roughly proportional to the cost of the required improvement of approximately 3,000 lineal feet of abutting roadway, with possible relocation of power lines. The applicant is dedicating the Lower Bridge right-of-way but any additional improvements are not warranted and in violation of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Staff Note: Applicant and Staff are working on a partial funding option that plainly complies with Nollan/Dolan. 21. The Hearings Officer erred in interpreting DCC 17.36.270 to require the applicant to submit a street tree plan. H.O. Decision, p. 91. Staff note: Staff concurs with the applicant on this issue. The criterion requires that street planting, if proposed, be approved by the planning director. It does not require street tree planning. 22. The Hearings Officer erred in her interpretation and application of a flood zone map to the subject property which was clearly and absolutely wrong, was arbitrary and capricious and violated the substantive due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Staff note: The Hearings Officer's decision did not directly address this issue. Staff believes the Hearings Officer's reliance on zone boundary maps that were adopted in 1988 (and have been in place continually since then) required no interpretation and that this map plainly applied to the subject property. The 1988 adoption of the Flood Plain zoning maps cannot be collaterally attacked under this PUD application. Staff believes the applicant appears to actually contest the FEMA flood hazard maps that provided the basis for this zone boundary. While the FEMA provided maps are known to have limited accuracy, they are the best available information. FEMA provides guidance on how to refine these maps. The applicant was File Nos.247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP(247-15-000521-A) Page 7 of 8 informed of the process to refine the existing maps at a pre- application meeting and declined to undertake the required study and mapping project. If the applicant wants to correct the Flood Plan zone boundary, a study following FEMA methodology followed by a zone change is the proper process. 23. The Hearings Officer's decision alone or combined with any one or more of the errors alleged above, leaves applicant with no viable economic use of the properly and constitutes the taking of it and entitles applicant to just compensation under Article 1, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the right to attorney's fees under ORS 20.080 and 42 U.S.C. 1983. Staff note: The applicant has been denied by the Hearings Officer for a PUD. The applicant has not applied for the approximately 15-lot, non-clustered subdivision on the property that is an outright (non-conditional) use. The applicant has also not also applied for the single dwelling allowed on the property without conditional use or subdivision approval. Only one use, a PUD, has been presently denied on the property. Staff notes that the present denial primarily rests on the applicant designing a PUD that exceeds the number of lots in the allowed in the zone, voluntarily configuring those lots as to make them undevelopable without special exceptions, and asking for residential approvals prior to completion of environmental investigations of the property. Nothing in the present denial indicates that a properly designed PUD application could not be approved on the property. As such, the applicant's claims the property has no viable economic as a consequence of this denial use are unsubstantiated. Attachments 1. Hearing Officer's decision 2. Notice of Intent to Appeal File Nos.247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP(247-15-000521-A) Page 8 of 8 N�'N rXa)• C N-O 5- N C q ° C b c C N O a) ]{ U N a -0_c N nC a) co U b C O N N LO-,--3_ � a › N N:6- .o 7 a p O b a a ' b o 12 N F gl'fl,E N t C b C ° t+tl p 9 O E -r)J N a>—O ai 6 -C N 'O d y7n 7 Q N O ., N a N N - N O N N w a) O m E w rna Y o) E75 4� c.�a C c c o 5O o3c o § -.c T( TO o ?,o 2 m N OC Tv—b C @ TE ac E >,c E?"' N L _ C N U• N N N U (a L 3 a 0. �a .0 .LL C '5 N > ry 7 N 0 C U • P Cl N C U Cr ¢ N CC c p m U u C LL ma _ o d4 m° a+ 3 x N E . E— o Er 5 `m E m o f E m E c C U E U-EU" U-o Ua o p F- (q9 ,„`.5. as L,, !pm en 9 Eh F ▪ o a)p In c3 0. c o p c °'.- ,a-o d c N 0- ° O o 6 a — L_ ro 9 0 O a .- c o "CT) O 0. c f, d 0 7m o w'en c z O oE c 0 O o 1-i--2 ay O o u"O-o a) 02_0 o C co Fc 2 OIc3m El•,— c N N Ic3m m `° oo S N `6n-° °( 4)'3.0 05 c� W a 6 N p � ti.2 TAd d° 'C @ nE N ° � -U a @ ,D O a,, p °b - .� LL c m ¢-o-§ E LLiwm Q•o3E ° U °' Qoo§ E cOia ° UQg3E �3�° 3 0.: m 6 n 6 a 6 a 6 a d m w ro C7 0 c O m c -ea N N 0- C CO O b LL- N C L c 6 p a o W 0. w m o3m m LL u_ C o q)-0'o p o m o �� c o C] m ai .0 O C .N D cN6 O Ti.O N ca 7 d -C a d `.=- b co 12 a- N c aO) O `—' N ¢C 0 Q. U c a) 7 -oo 3 o . oov m Cl).0 C N Q O "C-- 7 u_n 6@ N C 0 ' 0 O • C¢RS O N N E C U Q [0• m b co V — LL b () aL co oN , m Cl) c7 .-. c -o a N°N C -Yo 3 y 1E 7 O , N N O 2.C] co N m C C O b c C - co ? 7-- a O L 0 0 C Q CO O N. p a �a - u) C 15 tS N a a T b 7 0 N i .N b N .0 N C-o a G LL. -O 7 d 0 'O m di 0 10 C1 N C o C T E U u_6 -0 C dO '- O ❑ o N O O C C C U N W L N ❑N 0 a ? U CO N 7 C d ° Q U N � T 17 t6 m .0 V N D C 'F- LL -O N N U o OD u3 . w ?w m y ° ` m� N o � � a-o cn o 7 C a N co o o C w LL N_ ab_0 0 C 7 N _ y U O .O C Q y a U O a n C U a) C a y C C a N 0 .N T O_ O O b p C b C 0 7 "L7-w N b h 7 y m L N O -o U N-o N n _ . C N❑' EO .0 m N O N W w 1'C m o b N- 0w cw z m u_ m a C u c ro c� o O-C �b a1 Q.� N p_. a> �F a I <CC� za <H ILL Quo) in_0 raUEE < o, a+ "L3 d N "O w a1 C L C O O.. N . U a) CO en j O - M O V C O O a-Op•",.. - O 7._ m a N V cC N N N. c/l � O� p 0. b 4 N d co m C W cV a! 07 11 2 al N m t1 N d f.. U. b C cp N `-p C C 6.W .= C.C.N LL b Cb N N� 7 d C N Ili Q 2 a L.L. cn R.fl.C C N C g O C O L O O. U M O N 4J U N D O m U ,C cC 42 27 LL • ° a) C Ch 0 N N a) E a) O a A G c N.y� a a b'Q m @ N bin a - c CI a) Cr)C O O c�N•o C7 3o_..aN m O N a) O, O C'O in-5 d cr S),0a a) a)0 >. oy D mao ) b t r -S),0 C c to O N % M @ a∎ O a) a U a d cn y y 0 U a C C V) U N@ O a a) m V. T a) 0_to_C N c-O am•, N._•.0 C E o m •`mma NC@ L- N @ E N c co Q rb- O V@ @ N OC.N 0 O 7i a 0 O_ P -a co.N_? C T a) c N @ 7 2,,$) C - N C N E-- N A a) E j 7 7 T) O T@ W C O .=.,, b.@ a m N r a O N .. 7 2 N•U U cFN U C a) y .a O @ @ -a_y t a- @ Q@ o m o E m w o ID tn s CD C@•C ;) O.0 Z F a) 7 N.V~ o a a .0 t 0 0 E mo.. coO a ,O � x `c ¢ c m m w 0,@ E p 1 b _c N.. j O D U r-- c (n 0 c a Q c °C ca4 . . •o .. .2 m•aa)) aa) 0yEoc c cma0 E Wcr)azarn Cl) a).cc© m fn E E a E o c of o7) E E20 o U U c 4 n 0 a Y C N t to Vl Pad N (n a)L @ OQ b c c �? a r¢ cn,,,•Q m (n la?) C a O a) C 7) N 4 W N I c a d C Q O c @ c Q a C II 0+,-.a.o �-c T O O ,2 N•�pwc-•r 0 _,c a)•L'>,- Q€ a -c y.o xo � � - ',..3 CcobIo �' ccur,Tc " 2-a E •erwa 1c3m E� 'O 0. O 4_ •a y a q.in O. .c.0 • a'n Oct 9(.5 b•o 2 0 . O.� 1C _ @ @O -O U y.�,,,-O .EE 7 $ -0 O L Q 00.d)'O•C w a0 c O N.!---«-' fan E N -0 0 071%0 m <-�0 3 E LL mS-o ' `�-0 3 E 0 <- E u- alai a) n ro 2 c ¢ °ia 3 E 0 a.' cv a w .n ca a rd J a v o_C a a) _c m 4) N y 'Cl O@ c C a) N .E-. a 0 C c0 N E ctl U O 0 2 U a._ al ti'= CI Y C U V C a co o) a C U C N.c Q 0 0)a).c •E O_C_ J N-- O O -O- 0. - a- @•E m �- N ›,@ @� oin W m NYa @ a 2 C as as a c a aaoc 0 O C J ? @.? 7@ C .s-� C O@ O N Ta O C C7 O-Q CO (Un W.E o O C Z d o O ry W s E m e o a a� as w U -13 'ad;� 0.5 w c @ '9 n @ti b c 3 N o d 'O a) c @•O c 0 N N O r o a) q`) N at a C N a) C 9 U m m a.o O @ LT U C p vNi b e @ N -a E•E Lip 7= N@ o r E n. ° anti o a o m E a r�a E c)0.C- T 0a) F -o a7 ° m'- ccEEQ) a5 @o Cl U uTi N m `�U �' @- < O E c,N o-b N c m �n v o o a,a.- c m c E O U N 0 D N 0. -C U 0.a)3-C O 0 c m N N 'E o Erma c@ o� 0-YN v a o@ m C b N CO N @ •c_ Q ._�U y 0 a)m a a-"C' a) N'U N= a N n I _c a c-a a E O N N CO aim io U P@ O N @ a d cn N C EC C vi �i1 0.E= - -j r g.-,s T m O m E @p. m m c m m m 1.2 c o3 2).2 Oo° L ma " m ' c a c_ r�v c o (n m c U H V a U O ) c a c U D a)O> G U @ @_ wa O = @ QaE 0."a 003am a pg� 3 Q_o x .r.r. E < x @ ° < o x a E-.F..o < X,.` ❑ a) < oo- d d C N o ....— .._ .... CI-0. N'� xv `° a To N u is o 0 o c a 3 y a c c a c e a. tE a22Emw dyc) > yo•.FyoEfn ..a.0 c... w c 3 " m'c ; E442 ° (1) w c a ° N � owNr.yo v a W. e,....9 "V. «. amm 58w2 › aCya)mr 0 C_c e ,z O ›. •V 2 RS O C N O 7 N 0 d- a w C O cu n 0) Iii _c as O co as W N C .- 5.a P.2-T, O ° 0 >As N O P-• • N a ve_..—OL c O�b�-.C 7.C w ° Y C to W C 0 L. w 0 to E N @ • N P.O CO O c C C O �- y a O to. co ate' j G N e E N W c 0)0 O C S D_O-N o)0 U CCn 'c c C 0 a 0 0- C O a O N N - d+' O O N e o._ c -a c 3 E a -a �- a�i C7) c`� m ca mE� ,A ID ° ° ca E- N.o mp c c- N _ _• a) o C 7 CO 0'- CO c_ ._ 0 O N _ co U .0 N C• ° ., ,n uui N 'K e 0 C• N m 0 N P to U - O U y 7 0 N co R 0 C a N lc o @per• ° m a .N d O q,L, 0 • ro'0 L 0 crn� a o To o c C 'e' O _ C -at'- 0 C 2 C C S C 0 Q n N W t E E fp E E 7 oL m E e c E N E ° " $ m U.°c U°' 8° a A E R 2 2 m O I6 •_ p O o LT)_0 tp co 0 co a a u 0 P C 0 T O co U O -O lV O E $ O • N s N 0 D 0 E 0- O �' .61) '67, 0,-.:E. ° CcC r,Q G L 0 .O �(c rn U.E o i N*+ U .G1 70 i C (o E SD d= c 3 N M T•c'>,-0 2 0-t'[] . C 0 a.- O N )- a1 O.•m O w 'J a)p a)` '-p CO O ¢ 3E oLE) 3 -03�o mQC-0 °wb cs � oo-o` MI �cc c a-o E � a' e°¢a 3 E u > > an m E E ° o a 7 m 2_, Ca 0 O 0 'E C 0.co -4 7XC o ° 23 = a.c X0-0_ C7 a C— v 3 a0... w - O w al O 0 OL ° ° O 0 O-- a'0 m O W � N 0 q a1 fU._ a N 0 e N C -00.� C 0 a 't c N xtntan o at C O 0 a m o O O 0 ` a)E - Cl)f a U) oO 7 O N E a= e_c▪ N N C y 0 o O V d CO O c-O (p-5 N a) N 1 C N N a cO 4-. N a) -o Y1 -0 a at o� ° prn E � a m n awn o m c a -a `�U o@ 2 ro m • C(0 •• ttl C .. 0 O .. O-.- 0 0 C.._. c Q co to a)CQ "7 co" - CO fp -o co a▪ 0 fn W _0) U$ ° U a U tp N O N o' a M 0 c a O O 0.7 Q a 2 to._0 J E a s S d 7 = Q fU cn es A 0 m p e. 2 0 = " a).0 O C w d N C fOpY�, C fp O ta C ., 5 7 y T— £ N,F N C O Qf C 0 ten. 9'a t'e.- w 73 O•j N C1 N w, N C O= i 0 6i O O h C y b d.- V 7 O N O d a 0 O O C b n• ..• 9_a. aama` a E` Q. c]i+ 0 �'_' • e; ° •- I SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATV 91S5V. A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 360 SW Bond Street,Suite 500,Bend,OR 97702 1 Phone 541.749.4044 1 Fax 541.330.1153 1 www.schwabe.com TIA M.LEWIS Direct Line:541-749-4048 E-Mail:tlewis @schwabe.com January 6, 2016 By HAND DELIVERY Will Groves Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend,OR 97703 Re: Lower Bridge Road, LLC Appeal / Exhibit List County File Nos. 247-15-00194-C1J and 247-15-000195-TP Our File No. 116094-150752 Dear Will: Enclosed are Applicant's Exhibits as follows for the Appeal hearing before the Board: 1. Revised TP - Exhibit A-1 2. FIRM Map on Property - Exhibit A-2 3. Rimrock Setback Drawings - Exhibit A-3 4. Typical Lot Layouts - Exhibit A-4 5. Draft Dust Control Plan - Exhibit A-5 Please include these in the record for the above-referenced matter. Since y, r a M. Le is TMI..:ls Enclosures PORTLAND.OR 503,222 9981 I SALEM,OR 503 540.4262 I BEND,OR 541 749.4044 I EUGENE,OR 541 6863299 SEATTLE,WA 206622.1711 1 VANCOUVER.WA 160 694.7551 I WASHINGTON,DC 202 488 4302 PDX1116094\150752\TM L\17413630.1 4 r, iri r T fro '` `rvrb u ftl+ h. � r r OCALrlr• tlVai ROAD „ 1,..,,,,..4';',....+" ,�g 7th r t^ �, T-''".''' yl 7Y,IG1L SECiIUN„-„— 3 1 R e! �, 1 { Ili- y,l �If ,c.rc z (P1q �i. yy� �!4�� h - v " f k id c t i+; R r , �Y i � isaa� 3 ' x= I pJ W �; scnLc 7 r ; xs Y 'a :w wry .AFTx R cF it ° (3) ..Er.,• ..,,,. .r or me,.,� VICINITY Ma z A.r.,+ Y5. Pqs, 13�1�i� �Pf "�3 d 1 Fp 1 _ d 11111 rz �. � n � Mn l ` /N o4rc �S c 8 \\,t c1 q (F ' �' (/�S '^-Ac. .1 M1 .o t /. ,d e d _ j4 ttli iI 2 3 f/f ar spAe_ �,' ,__L- A ( lI / Z1 lit 7 p! / tONERH1imcr P,DADLL�4 � / PL NNEU U!VFI OPMEN7;,-f ( I .. r VF PLAN / 1 e.s iee } u_.. w". Il �h' \�M I r i i, rV_Pf�l s. 7 ` z ■` II I` ,111'`. s I.'.,. d,I1 I w i'\ t'� 12 1 A,F — .[ ^J.9 AL'Y;�t .t �1�',i':,` �/ (..6,-. I/I�nvF SpNCE •\ i \t6r,,,� r 11\ /�fr rry,r ,ir ,, ri et�e.r+rmwr-R. �ovamv na nr,[an.o t , t a./ to "� P .:^f,. ..:,'''....,4',..i. ^-� h4 C '„raarwl77ee`..W r e p ...z.,,,,- P + �”' �if ! a .k.,,,,,,,,.. .,---77.--4:-,� , q y:3,:-,°-:..-.,r r ▪1-, 6 ' _nom nErooarcory N. 4 1�• �, ��- 1. ) J:. �]y � ' � 'a ��� � rG■'9 .1- w &'}: at 7a "{ A 1�. /Sron .12-. ..;,'IT.,/r, '5 ro " r - ru,t1' `" 1 o- " 1 .u L �i rd 7 S>a opN 0.c" . C"'" i, r, / ti(� - ' 'di � f kyer '� }F'J P RUJFCT AREA SUMMARY �‘7".., 6.44..j`' , . .■p1 - r I;GT ND /d �, H N r A n0rr.,vn,,,nn,wr,,..t ;:�."' _ _ o.. ` on te I �,' � ,.— °5• .. r x a s..s .. w A SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION dPLAN 0 ' deo DA ostl1)Parke' 1I( � _ ∎a i --. /roe 7/ ,\�S) MINOR PARTIT ION MO-60 96 (� 1 1 / � 7,,% ANNEO OEVELOPMFNr I r r lG `g°Y I c S I Exhibit A-1 Pa..or 1 of 1 ■MIL _,...--- -- MI M.gil Inkia.,..4.14"I' .. F----- or m neVeim ra• •"1 ,)... , 6040e; ., ', ., .,,,,,,,e If A ,.4. . 4, ,„ ::,..1, +r:41: 4 ..1 g , 0, -74.*„„, 7 , 4" 3 7'''' I o ,,i+' : I , l'•^',5yo. .:,,.00.1. ,,_,---i----r"5---",147",---:- l',•1.65 **,455,.. ' : 5> 1 'ii 4, •li 4,„.:;.. ,' Air .---.7-,,,,., t -'-- ' .l' * "c., .- , 4 ', 1 4t° . ' i' •#gaper bre" -''.p- 1 . • . *„.1'4. k• ti ,..,fir.0"k *- '' , ;- ,s. d' 6 i 7 .'' ' " x"' ; " DETAIL 1 :.,, '''!:. '1,'':,) \ thie - *walk!!-"Ii • -'' • ,or,..--'7;..—....„.. , ,,,„--, '-..,,I ll ,p,..,,":"C 400104 ,or ot , ,,i' • ',, ..-t4, '., .., "' I ,„.,'''' „,....• _..,--,--- ,----;-....-,..„-"*;s. :NO 1,144011t, off. 1.."',,,„ , ,aril'ik ,'''',.,,:7,.,4,-...„............4.--'',AI-•*,,,,,,,,v, - ",..' ---, , 1 - ; '7 f ,, ' ''. ' • * ;`, s . 04 *' . ---. ' all= '''"0'' *I" ,. — 4 4W •I ',-.---, - , ,,,<,....---->'''4c.,-- . , - II # "=7 ''-' r..fr 'rr' t''' "01 .. di., . f..1f ' . 1- --.---' "' 4..r° ''.i "s'■.4,i'' de,00',. t '1 .4, 4 1V"." ' ", ' — ' --''"."'''.• 2.°,,',,1,,, .1,40 :, ' a°,'• , 1 t!s , /Axiom' i " ., i, 'k' , iwoo-Isas lq ' .. i 1 , • , , ■00, . :.■., 1,' :,' i'''' ," :44 " AND_ AA:-— wprilk ,4., ,, ■ w.... ,,,-. A 1.? ,fIll .,, *ill'i!"'., 4 ", ''''''f '314,,, „,',-.*** -,-,,,,,',4.,„„kt,„-4.`; ' ' 1,.. , ',;• N '''' t . - ' , ,■rxr'',"'"1. '4..' . r" 4■ '44 Hi.+■• '''.* \ .$ '' - ..■ - - ''''''', 4-. , ' l'r ..-.- :1" i , ,,, , . 1 ..., . - . i,„,......t...i , :., /;1„.:•72.,,,7,-- H.I1 / . -.0- .".f. '■ : '. ., -.. ; . , ,- ,.", ., ,,,, 'API* t .m—.ii 4 DETAIL 2 SCALE::"=100' i LOWEELBORWIDEGREBPRLAIDNGNfr ERD°DEDVLFLLCOPMENT . D A .lr'P'' Li( I LCrri. .:::,....'":' .C. EXHIBIT OF DESCHUTES COUNTY FLOOD PLAIN LA INZOVE 1 ..... Exhibit A-2 Page 1 of '1 le /. ''''''' ' V""6-.'"41/45 1 4"W'"...,4''1 ' ,6." _*, 4, : ,1 7t � t O \ : ,,, ..__ ' , ' Y, r ; 1 si," f . W of ' V 4 r A �r w } hM y tft ‘i W ' - - - i -z s t,. r ;Iv , 444 1 ,11,i. , ,i '' ? IL., 0 , 7.4„ 1.4 ,..,,.,.:1, , ,,,, , ' ,,,.,,,$.1.„,t,i:',,,,,,,,,t,‘,4,,,...4,,,, ,,,,, . . dkclio''''''f°'4"-"7%filliks'Iti' 6., s^ ti d e -i;„,. f r "riir . • M n i i 1 d ° 1 v =t' , ai ° r N " y i 'h :P. , � Yom � . �A, 4 d,:p , LOWER BRIDGE ROAD Il.0 D\ •n,.,f'ari.r.Li!' LOWER BRIDGE PLANNED DFVFL.UF$9FNT rn y� RIMROCK AND SETBACK EXHIBIT MAP I Exhibit A-3 Page 1 of 2 LEG EN D SE.E kl, 1 _ I,4111611%./ ,7 ON OF 10 / ,strz, t, .." _4'4. ..,.. 4 .. lk-4, - ... 4+, i 11 ; ;vP " ' _. 0 ,, .. ...C. ; , .,■.,, : 0$ r k.. , . \ 12 ' \'' . -' Ac .41414, ...—../----0.--,„--- II, . • vo + 144f, 14 ' t. . I j , ,.. -,, . „4 ''',"„ , . ',,,,,,s.• t'd. ,,'..,,,t. , TRACT A , ' 7'r OPEN SPACE \ ,.. ih , ...,..,„L . : r - , 4 e &RAC, 1g ,. 00 'Ir V 6'' 18 . ....',„,4• it 41.3 *A. 1' • .....„„ ..,.... . 19 r-, . ° .., 4\ 4. .. . ,, 4 ■ i roi , . ..,..„-- TRAcT'B' OPEN SPACE i ,--k '----- 4 it..0 '," ' . . v i j i 0, v . W f , , 4' i , b 4 1. t \ ■P 4 I I , LOWER OF-LOGE ROAD LLC NT /D Liolli!" , im ik 1 1 RIMLORW0EcR KBRAIDNGDE SP ELATNBNAECD KDEEVx&bil°I:MI;MAP ■1 - -— - Exhibit A-3 Page 2 of 2 ,_/ b ''3 DESCHUTES RIVER z y 2570 _ _ ti r-- w 25_110----- #61Q — .� r �; j` 2620 f i� .. ''� .... ,n ro ono t .- I p�z r---.._..... VI ro p p x 0 Z S x zz i l-- n"Q �I� ii)- C Cf X p ry1 CI 'g£ I M1 G Y OM '�V � �plp- r'C7 L. /i N dq ` vR ? mQ / /,", r �z oar ',. pO2ry �_ _..... ..J zAr ,1, ! ,� a ppt 717 r `gyp",��, ,p i d ^, ' 1,5 FYI vian—. I` 2W h i�j,9; f ' � 2 N�a .1., b_14__— .891 0 5."" zd e&" N r / 4__- __.__ __ " } a sf q rya V'k'w' { �,�f'tin yw "i 1 r'k A , M11 dr h 77 1,, �_/ •` t" �;°, L+° ems'.° ..............'.� �..Illiir ppn T� 's a A 7 a r . min rit. I 0M t - 'nom ,l' ' T~—~y~ D &Z/222:11 Crl St'5, a'3 '' C/] v �n.m) ma J A H q -3m03a Am m0 yM RI oK pp-r0a a -C m X a I a. ny83 '� _..y mH 4 NC tl R to ''t 1 ,2 m N ON I V X41 m ; W 0 i OcvrNr:u: f LOWER BRIDGE ROAD LLC cN£rB Br- !'' LOWER BRIDGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ���f O�sf uRawN Br. ._GAB.._ O C Br .K Q LOT 4 m '4 a,�Is D'Agrrntu�Parker,LLC LAST MT 12/30/15 1 of CINILIN,kWW.W,.1,.... - PLOrOarEf2/9„ TYPICAL LOT LAYOUT EXHIBIT 41.. = S. I r5 &ENO OiEGOnr T� P:/1 1rr,li W Imp tPRO..£^r. ORAWNC r;Lc NAME lip —. 0ANO01 TcrOy,1,9rowc Exhibit A-4 Page 1 of 2 1J p ,N,7rl', 4i '' pp T 6 i p. " ' 'fin i 'ti.4 A b i :� „i ip" + ', M P a: ^ *. �I Yra it y,, h" ->'-''' rxr . `°b � N ^ � .----ate-- r1 -c o MAO m 2612 \ � � pi r�c> sSi ti 'i' ; q -I 4' 75'± tl �d-1 �� 2r.+r 'i p,0n ropry o D — Ca.F-.--- 1 F� ny� w I- o z m,Az VARM'S ,, a� a z C c§ a8 2s A5 '-71m1�� ' ~� H. a s 1. i„..-41.T- -4- t, 3 P1 '� u y 26T x ,I[,Ayl�.pA{ 1.r9 At7* f Axtei ri��b77 ",l GGbh� /+ '..._... _ ^.,...� Try r'1 t1r/yV} .... B �, ?gam 2820 w: ?e?B '`‘,„,` ' ,. _. 26/Q o z - 760 ti r t Q-1 r- 2380 \ . a ._-.--�= —ri ..• _ ...,��2 �.: . al 1 o '7. _ r. ■ '58'4"4 H "c oc ba aA 3! I1 HQ 49 b m r• ,. � �DES� r r „ , m d t R p N z Nz N o a r v ,Q DE 3 r,lsit-0 _cm_ LOWER BRIDGE ROAD LLC /� DRAAN ar t `a? 444 Mn' ,K LOWER BRIDGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APP D eY M 1 r 0 5 l' D'Ag'ntlrro Parker,LLC • NF KD$Y LOT 12 ` t+ '' ,. ... �,....., LAST 601 T 12118/15 p� iI• lit..,,,, , PE"Jr 0A rE12/Ie/13 TYPICAL LOT LAYOUT EXHIBIT 1 :1 au rl - u _ SENO OREGON t, ,,p� r CAL PRO,t'C'. 7RAIMV.;""�,.[. NAME: 1�-- `„ 1•.4O. • ■ANOOI TYPICA OT.r ,- Exhibit A-4 Page 2 of 2 wallaCeGROUP Lower Bridge Road Residential Development Dust Control Plan Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction and Other Earthmoving Activities require the owner or operator of a construction project to submit a Dust Control Plan to the Lower Bridge Road Subdivision Homeowners Association (LBR HOA) if at any time the project involves: - Residential development, - Subdivision infrastructure construction,and/or - Moving, depositing, or relocating of more than 10 cubic yards of bulk native soil or imported fill materials. A Dust Control Plan identifies the fugitive dust sources at the construction site and describes all of the dust control measures to be implemented before, during, and after any dust generating activity for the duration of the project. The LBR HOA will review and approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the Dust Control Plan within 30 days of submittal. Construction activities shall not comment until the Dust Control Plan has been approved or conditionally approved An Owner or operator must also provide written notification to the LBR HOA via fax,email or mail within'10,days prior to the commencement of earthmoving activities. A copy of the approved Dust Control Plan mu st be retained at the project site and made available upon request by LBR HOA, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), or Deschutes County representatives. Regardless of whether a HOA-approved Dust Control Plan is in place or not, the owner or operator is required to comply with all requirements of applicable'µ©EO and Deschutes County Rules and Regulations at all times. Submit the Dust Control Plan to the LBR HOA office listed below: Lower.Bridge Road Homeowners Association P.O. Box TBD Terrebonne,OR 97XXX Phone Number(541) XXX-XXXX Email address FAX Number (541)XXX-XXXX b2915 N6 18 Si. Sto 1,EBer+d OR 57701 p 541 ,ir32 4707 f i 541.383.8118 w,IlaCogroup-inc,com Exhibit A-5 Page 1 of 13 Dust Control Plan Section 1 -General Information---Page 1 1-A Project Name and Location Project Name: Project Address: City: .._ Section(s): County: Township: Range: Expected Construction Start Date: EndDate: 1-B Contacts Report the names, addresses, and phone numbers of persons and owners or operators responsible for the preparation, submittal, and implementation of the Dust Control Plan and responsible for the dust generating operation and dust control applications. Property Owner: Address: City/ State/Zip: Phone: Email: Developer: Address: City/ State/Zip: Contact Person: Phone: Email: General Contractor: Address: City/State/Zip: Contact Person: Phone: Email: This Dust Control Plan was prepared by: Name: Title: Company Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: Email: ❑ I would like additional information about opportunities to reduce water usage on the project site. 61:915 NE 18 St. Ste 1.13:ria. OR 97701 p 1 541 382 4707 1 i 54 11..383.81 18 wallacegroup-inc.com Exhibit A-5 Page 2 of 13 Section 1 --General Information — Page 2 Project Name: 1-C Contractors Provide the names,addresses, and phone numbers of the contractors involved in dust generating activities or performing dust control as part of this project. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1-0 Who will have the primary responsibility for implementing this Dust Control Plan? ❑ Property Owner ❑ Developer ❑ General / Prime ❑ Sub-Contractor(s) Q Other: Primary Project Contact: Title: Company Name: - Address: City/State/Zip: On-Site Phone: Fax: Mobile Phone: Emat 1-E Provide a brief description of the project's operations. 62915 Ni 18 S. Nr, Beo 4,OR t+/701 p I 5'4.332 470/ 11 541.383.8118 wallacogroup-inc-com Exhibit A-5 Page 3 of 13 Dust Control Plan Section 2—Plot Plan- Page 1 Project Name: 2-A Plot Plan A plot plan identifies the type and location of each project. Attach appropriately sized maps with the project boundaries outlined or use the space in sections 2-B or 2-C to draw a plot plan. Attached maps may include tract maps, site maps, and topographic maps. Use the checklist below to make sure all areas have been identified on the allot clan. Identify the relative locations of actual and potential sources of fugitive dust emissions. Bulk material handling and storage areas. Paved and unpaved access roads, haul roads,traffic areas, and equipment storage yards. Exit points where carryout and tracks onto paved public roads may occur. Water supply locations if water application will be used for controlling visible dust emissions. Other: 2-B Draw Plot Plan (if one is not attached) Include;a North Arrow Plot plan is attached (Skip to 3-A). 62915 NF 'I8 St. 810 1, t?cinr_f,O1 E+r701 p 154 I.382.4/01 I 1 841.983.8118 wall rcegr up-inc.Corn Exhibit A-5 Page 4 of 13 Dust Control Plan Section 3 — Fugitive Sources— Page 1 Project Name: 3-A Disturbed Surface Area Report the total area of land surface to be disturbed, the estimates daily throughput volume of earthmoving in cubic yards,and thetotalarea inacres of the entire projectsite. Total area of land surface to be disturbed: Acres Daily maximum throughput volume of earthmoving: Cubic Yards Daily average throughput volume of earthmoving: Cubic Yards Total area of entire project site: Acres Total disturbed areas that will be left inactive for more than seven days: Acres 3-B Dust Generating Activity Dates The expected start and completion dates of dust generating activities and soil disturbance activities to be !. performed on site. For phased projects, it may be necessary to eport expected start and completion dates separately. Expected start date: Completion Date: Phase Project Start—A: Completion—A: Phase Project Start—B: Completion—B: Phase Project Start—C: Completion—C: a2911.)NL 18 St.Sir''. Bend.OR '77U1 p l 541 382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wailacr roue inc.corn Exhibit A-5 Page 5 of 13 Section 3 — Fugitive Sources — Page 2 Project Name: 3-C Sources of Fugitive Dust This section describes the minimum requirements for limiting visible dust emissions from activities that cause fugitive dust emissions. Check at least one box under each category. Structural Demolition No demolitions are planned for this project. Asbestos NESHAP notification and fees have been submitted to the l-134 Water will be applied to the following areas for the duration of the demolition activities: • Building exterior surfaces; • Unpaved surface areas where equipment will operate; - Razed building materials;and • Water or dust suppressants will be applied to unpaved surface areas within 100 feet of structure during demolition. Pre-Activity Not applicable for this project (Please explain why in Section3-E). The site will be pre-watered and work will be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time(Complete Section 4-A). Active Operations Water will be applied to dry areas during leveling, grading, trenching, and earthmoving activities(Complete Section 4-A). Wind barriers will be constructed and maintained, and water or dust suppressants will be applied to the disturbed surface areas(Complete Sections 4-A or 4-B, and 4-C). Inactive Operations, including after work hours,weekends, and holidays. Not applicable for this project (Please explain why in Section 3-E). Water or dust suppressants will be applied on disturbed surface areas to form a visible crust, and vehicle access will be restricted to maintain the visible crust. (Complete Section 4- A or 4-B, and 4-C) Temporary stabilization of areas that remains unused for seven or more days. Not applicable for this project (Please explain why in Section3-E) Vehicular access will be restricted and water or dust suppressants will be applied and maintained at all un-vegetated areas (Complete Section 4-A or 4-B, and 4-C). Vegetation will be reestablished on all previously disturbed areas (Complete Section 4- C). Gravel will be applied and maintained at all previously disturbed areas (Complete Section 4-C). Previously disturbed areas will be paved (Complete Section 4-C). Unpaved Access and Haul Roads, Traffic and Equipment Storage Areas. Not applicable for this project (Please explain why in Section3-E) Apply water or dust suppressants to unpaved haul and access roads (Complete Section 4-A or4-B) Water or dust suppressants will be applied to vehicle traffic and equipment storage areas (Complete Section 4-A or4-B). 62915 rJL 1!" si `~te 1.bend OH 97, p i 54'.352 4707 f i 541 3318118 waIIacegroup Inc.con' Exhibit A-5 Page 6 of 13 Section 3 — Fugitive Sources — Page 3 3-D Bulk Materials Outdoor Handling of Bulk Materials. No bulk materials will be handled during this project. Water or dust suppressants will be applied when handling bulk materials. Wind barriers with less than 50 percent porosity will be installed and maintained, and water or dust suppressants will be applied. Outdoor Storage of Bulk Materials. No bulk materials will be stored during this project. Water or dust suppressants will be applied to storage piles. Storage piles will be covered with tarps, plastic,or other suitable material and anchored in such a manner that prevents the cover from being removed by wind action. A three-sided structure(<50%porosity) will be used that is at least as high as the storage piles. On-Site Transporting of Bulk Materials. No bulk materials will be transported on the project site. Vehicle speed will be limited on the work site. All haul trucks will be loaded such that the freeboard Is not less than six inches when transported across any paved public access road A sufficient amount of water will be applied to the top of the load to limit visible dust emissions. Haul trucks will be covered with a tarp or other suitable cover. Off-Site Transporting of Bulk Materials. No bulk materials will be transported to or from the project site. The following practices will be performed:(complete Section 5-B) • The interior of emptied truck cargo compartments will be cleaned or covered before leaving the site. • Spillage or loss of bulk materials from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment's floor,sides,and tailgates will be prevented • Haul trucks will be covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or will be loaded such that the freeboard is not less than six inches when transported on any paved public access road to or from the project site and a sufficient amount of water will be applied to the top of the load to limit visible dust emissions. Outdoor Transport using a Chute or Conveyor. No chutes or conveyors will be used Chute orconveyorwillbefully enclosed. Water spray equipment will be used to sufficiently wet the materials. Transported materials will be washed or screened to remove fines (PM10 or smaller). 3-E Comments 62915 NE 18' Sl, 51r; 1. Bend,OR 91701 p 1 541,382.4"107 1 1 541 3113.8118 wall icegroup-inc.com Exhibit A-5 Page 7 of 13 Section 4-Dust Control Methods—Page 1 Project Name: 4-A Water Application Complete this section if water application will be used as a control method for limiting visible dust emissions and stabilizing surface areas. Check and answer everything that applies to the project. Water Application Equipment: Sprinklers: Describe the activities that will utilize sprinklers: Minimum treated area: Square Feet/Acres Maximum treated area: Square Feet/Acres Minimum water flow rate: Gallons/minute Duration: Water Truck,Water Trailer, Water Wagon, Other: Describe the activities that will utilize this equipment: Number of application equipment available: Application equipmentcapacity: Water Supply: Include the relative locations of these sources on the plot plan in Section 2. Fire hydrants Number of hydrants available On-Site: Off-Site: Approval granted by the owner or public agency to use their fire hydrants for this project. Owner orAgency: Contact: Phone No.: Storage tanks Number and capacity: Wells Number andflow rate: Approval granted by the owner or public agency to use their water source for this project. Owner or Agency: Contact: Phone No.: 0915 NE 18 S!, $t. 1, Bute .O1 %'i"01 p 1 541.382 a-'li'7 f 1 541 181.8118 wallas ejroup-iric.com Exhibit A-5 Page 8 of 13 Section 4-Dust Control Methods—Page 2 Project Name: 4-B Dust Suppressant Products Complete this section if a dust suppressant product will be used. These materials include, but are not limited to: hygroscopic suppressants (road salts), adhesives, petroleum emulsions, polymer emulsions,and bituminous materials(road oils). _. y this page if more ant orcd.uct wi11. used Q Not Applicable. Only water application will be the control method used. Skip to 4-C. Application Area: Product Name: Contractor's Name: Phone No: Application Rate: Gallons of undiluted material per mile or acre treated. Application Frequency: Applications per week,month,year Application Equipment: Number of Application Equipment Available: Application Equipment Capacity: Attach each of the following information that fully describes this product. Use the checklist belowto make sure all information is submitted with this plan. Product Specifications(MSDS, Product Safety Data Sheet,etc.) Manufacturer's Usage Instructions(method,frequency, and intensity of application) Environmental impacts and approvals or certifications related to the appropriate and safe use for ground application. 62;315 NE 1a' St. •:1 1, ElcnJ,CA-1 9;•'CI p i 5.1.382.iiu t i 5,31 i.8118 wailacegroup-inc.com Exhibit A-5 Page 9 of 13 Section 4---Carry-Out and Track-Out — Page 3 Y 9 Project Name: 4-C Other Dust Control Methods Check below the other types of dust control methods that will be employed at the construction site. ❑ Physical barriers for restricting unauthorized vehicle access: Fences Gates Posts Berms Concrete Barriers Other: Wind barriers Describe: Re-establish vegetation for temporarily stabilizing previously disturbed surfaces. ❑ Explain: Apply and maintain gravel: ❑ On haul roads On access roads At equipment storage yards At vehicle traffic areas For temporarily stabilizing previously disturbed areas. Explain: Apply pavement: ❑ Explain: Other: 4-D Contingencies Contingencies to be implemented if,application equipment becomes ino perable more equipment is needed to effectively control fugitive dust emissions during active and inactive periods, accessibility limitations occur at the water sources, or staff is not available to operate the application equipment. Describe the contingencies that wili be in place and when they will be implemented. Attach any additional information, if needed. ' I 4-E Record keeping Records and any other supporting documents for demonstrating compliance with dust control must be maintained by the owner/operator for those days when a control measure is implemented. €2915 NE 18 St, Ste 1, EA:id,OR 97701 p 1541 302.4707 t 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com Exhibit A-5 Page 10 of 13 Section 5 —Carry-Out and Track-Out --- Page 2 Project Name: 5-A Treatments for Preventing Track-Out Select the control devices that will be used for preventing track-out from occurring onto paved public roads. Track-out is any material that adheres to vehicle tires and is deposited onto a paved public road or the paved shoulder of a paved public road. Check one or a combination that will apply to this project. Grizzly: Rails, pipes, or grates used to dislodge debris off of vehicles before exiting the site. Extends from the intersection with the paved public road surface for the full width of the unpaved exit surface for a distance of at least 25 feet. Describe: Gravel Pad: A layer of washed gravel at least one (1) inch or larger in diameter, three (3) inches deep, and extends from the intersection with the public paved road surface for the full width of the unpaved exit surface for a distance of at least 50feet. Gravel Size: Inches Pad Width: Feet Length: Feet Depth: Inches Paved Surface: Extends from the intersection with the paved public road surface for the full width of the unpaved access road for at least 100 feet to allow mud and dirt to drop off of vehicles before exiting the site. Width: Feet Length: Feet Mud and dirt deposits accumulating on paved interior roads will be removed with sufficient frequency, but not less frequently than once per week. Clean-up Frequency: Wheel Washer: Uses water to dislodge debris from tires and vehicle undercarriage. Describe: Other: 62915 NE 1'3 'St. 'ate ' Bend U1i :r01 p 1 5,11 383:'.2170 f j 541.383,81'1B wal;wegroup-inc-Corn Exhibit A-5 Page 11 of 13 Section 5 —Carry-Out and Track-Out — Page 2 Project Name: 5-B Treatments for Preventing Carry-Out Report the required treatments that will be used for preventing carry-out from occurring on paved public roads. Carry-out occurs when materials from emptied or loaded haul trucks, vehicles, or trailers falls onto a paved public road or paved shoulder of a paved public road. No haul trucks will be routinely entering or leaving the project site. Emptied Haul Trucks: Interior cargo compartments will be cleaned before leaving the project site. Cargo compartment will be covered with a tarp or suitable cover before leaving the project site. Loaded Haul Trucks: Spillage or loss of materials from holes or other opening in the cargo compartment will be prevented when material istransported onto any paved public access road. Sect one or both of the required applications: Heal trucks will be loaded such that the freeboard is not less than six inches with water applied to Vie top of the load before leaving the project site. Cargo compartment and load will be covered with a tarp or suitable cover before leaving the project site. Other: 5-C Record keeping for Cleanup Qf Carry-Out and Track-Out Records and any other supporting documents for demonstrating compliance with carry-out and track-out must be maintained by the owner/operator. • 42915 NEE 18 Si. ale t, Bend,ON 97701 p 1 541.3822.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallace9roup-inc.com Exhibit A-5 Page 12 of 13 Section 6--Certification — Page 1 Project Name: 6-A Certification The owner, principle operator, or the individual implementing must certify the plan. I certify that all information contained herein and information submitted in the attachments to this document are true and correct. Print Name Title Signature Date Phone Number Email Cell Number 62915 NE: 13` St. S't<1, Bend.OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacragruup-inc.com Exhibit A-5 Page 13 of 13 i I II f- II C a)1 1 E , a 0 .., ,- O ,,, ,..,„ „: 1 ai) c.....) i > r,, i CI bi) rn 1 13 C v . O u 0 I CL >1', 4f r, -°' 9. HI g C u c. •mmi r/I)� tin ICO W/$...4 n ud Ihm 0 o I a) all 1 0 emmll I i I .4 cu . 4,... ...... ,L. .. ' NI ' € 2 W: ' a 4.0 c -, .:A ---' "n lir — u., U '::;;;.„i.n';'t* ) , Lai II a a) —6- ..04, -, 14 ,-;!.,..,....i.„,,,-, <,,,-;„'t-kt,-„....„, ' -1.,-...-;::::‘,W?i.,•, Ashit.--s :</.4k Z Sell', -hair-i1/4 MN bris .-- Lai 7,44 7',ifrt7::17. 44; .. 1-145.4,e, titisiw104 4 . faitst< a ,,,,... ';--Lt.; .23' CL, ' -, . 4.'"-. 77T-.; .,. .., i'r, .-.f.i..,..n-f. , a • .a,._74. t..-:-. .-,itt‘'U......i.raps...,,F: 4,5,470;:.: '1114;4,4'anti t, ,'.• -#4:, r:'1;1 ,-:;*!,ri .'" ,„-• - ea_., -. - .7. —4,-.:4,fir.Ati,t-,44,41{-i as 'et'r; :: L-4,7,:jortr Lf.7:teirri 4r4t,i,„ 'it-, . --rAir-, Em.seimfAlatIbl 4 ,i,' , :‘- 4 :4.4.; ,etee' wfreitik.al.,---.1.:1 '111"--i legir-7t ./I •t!if:jar te. s14-,.- 'r-a k. ' „ /cal bz.- a 3,e:-,,.. "4 f, , , ,-,-if, :-:.(,,, Nt ' ' , . ilnii-VAN.Ct'saitilkE i'itt' fakt,f, kr-,4‘,.-0. ,ie - a 17:tr. !4it' 4itti:::2-7V;7!'"7;41 7 „‘,fro , ;,,,04 ,,,:,,,,-°, ;,.. "1-. ..,;,,,.,,, w.$) .-,:e..- t lok .,„ := — -;*:--- , %-a*-11•4010 IA% - ',.,-.:- a aa Si a ,, ‘ N,\ ; ,:--, - P.'" -. ';,-- V „ W'-'' hies a a ,. ., '.70;;;;‘, Ai 4A0ieir,Alta a a a a i ( r T,* f i.e a it ii. S I. R tom a CD d e • Al c."‘,.. t 1 I _ 1 " s 3 • •Ir '-i... _ - - — � c air ' iI I 0 1 TO I C 70 a) CC L O 1 ca Co as °c' 0 0 V o I (I)� �, w 2 ( ^ a as _0 ._ > a 1 Cl) E W co r- M 1 cal C 0 NJ a C a R3. 0 t. 0 ais aami � �. n i1 - _ 2- a .:. 'i art tail t_)) t 1 3 '. yIQ i a '..sa .,Mr ,:. .1'1 ss , 1.; „...1# t l ♦ mil a iE � YY C �.. a a ' a ' rill I slit � r�g'• 1 a I. 1 as a a a a a i• a i s a 4 m -: `, 4 s to x .. .' r pct' k a s ,,a ar s ,.. -, ' . d a t' 4 ii . y s g ,A 7,-off h-,‘,1 kJ r A { ` $yam, �3 a T e mob., P. y ^3f+ `s 'q • •i :• . F a , ` > a . , ;rte ` °R �3 i M_ � :` ` ; c.as a Ty� $$ r.r YY x W a 1 8 S • ?«.'' 'i r , •.:i� r Yi1' W4q,8 ' t{y : . Y� di { z. y ai x,3�a �� ' #.` ' .".erg I t- a. Smr- x ,; �' aly 7,..1.,-,4,,,. ,X �` - 0. Ai l a g � ., . � r r ` � o a p i 1rt. NSF . g { h- yq,�� '' x PS� f^ p'J4v'3 { � �4 "..":5".., p s • a t,i.x x�. i is �' �' 4 "°` a : ,. I I t s fir` ?® P. E 3e%..'' LI t. I I. >L.I. t ric 1 # 4'� a ,,,,,, ,.,,, . , al 1. ,.. , } ,, ,. , ■ 11 } t t . } �iju� ', i 4 f`�5 ra y ,t a 1 1 a _o>, N N a o C N r C p O a O n O = Qw N A O cn . LL a -0 cn O co 0 o CO C a) UCO) ) n > i — p •.a) cn ow as CO O > C N -a LS. C O I- p p >, O 2 C LL to C� C E N ya.. -p p RS I.LJ O p O al Z p :r Q a CD E a Q- a) " ° -0 C i 0 N Cll a) to U m L p O V >, d O p C S N ) o p C ?. C -a = — C - •C6 O 0 a :}-5 CIS -0 a Q Z0 _C C LL N co — 0 (� O c(S O cz p C C = t d 16, C6 C� NC C C Ca -j., O U co S as -p 15 0 p -a c c — ° a) st ° — >, O C O Ca (2 p C A C 0 C6 C a 0 CU p 2 0- o 0 O -C .o .o p L -° 0 E Q- " - ( 0 0 c C, C o p a., C n CO U � CO ._ d — -E p to � = an � aCC) C ° a .� OO U C 0 - CO 0) "- o - p C o us `� —. a Cll a Q1 W ca N Q '3 Co o p -`n m 2 ca "_ p E >, .0 a co Ai Q , n co 5 C j ° 73 s_ - 0 p t- -(75 ; °N ° -_,=. L > c Q p .r o E a) c .t �' c2a co ate) (I) ca .= >' -,..-4 '- CO w C L L ai SC 00 p E O a O = � Q- OC >, C (,,.,J r-I I- < Cn CD O — 0 Co U — c co a a I S 1 1 I ' C Y (`lam eh ."i .ice.. It ,y\ d `. 8 C r II cii e s t1 y �� ■ ' m ti • I^/ im s8 1:: C s co ir V it V w d D Q w • o 0 0 g� w t� oF Iii 11000 1 OVID , c Lo • o� jkt �r� �\)� 1 I 1 AI. 4. u o v J O u i a C N j C C E a N N C V h _ fin 4 o t a o N y.,a G O _V r N N :%� C a C 'C E 6 0 1 'y` .5 7 2 c. C �. O � " V .0 � , u N •r .5 E h ^' E N N a c a• u + O (N .-. h O, ,.. N 1 N r u .CC v' p E r /t,'' C Vu sit" '� „ O f+ Co x i 44 t Y G U t -- _ t C N O E y v c u � u •= c m V G u V E p v gj V V C C C O a rs u = a V a u F J to L] v> V .Y u C cn S E u r 4' u G C =; o s V ..„ C C C C V V v G . S It y 6 2 A 7 C; O .0 C O '/' in ` 0 U rs L Ci 'O 4.. 2 C\4:54 C C N p.V • sVp O O &° — S V O �' O V ist N is C N w 'J "- N M G. m a+ O 7 N V+ ti. a► a a ua e LA 2 o c E u >. Y A r H s C' v 3 c. U 'a .. 2 U tat `^ C m O foll g F _ E 2 .c , co v 0,1 .0 oD� °- G u c U c 7 ..,2 'D .4. c .� is a a cc � ' > rah^ o a b - o u 0 C ° e � s. O. ° a ; v. a A c c ° ec Zs 1 8 c ° s c .. ACS €`° ° sa, E u O i .Q ; .s 'N C y L G rj C C C 7 c 'O " U CV'1� (=j C N C !"O C IC a.0 E , y 8 c) _ a 3 > c 8 7 � a s U J� v. c c C 8. 7 It V' C. o � " 1` c c n c a; A G U c t u g c°Q F `r i d 4 .� - ^ -0 -2 C •G -0 q c .� V c G 9 ..= UU ca G. a vi d = h c ;470 '� . a u c . IA o H et. 5 •r u a E u y ° v' y"� Y L ` v • v t 8g � " v L/1 G 'c. Z v C r Y � W V, v c c -0 . 0 8 V c .0 Cbli LC S. d �" C G G c0 At .0 � c . ,CV E. ,5 `u c ~, E a E 14 V X g a .c E a c 0. l c iiVk , 411 ig [ tij 'fr I a Uwe a evs74( tle LuX. X■a. i? J a - 4 e e X 1 • (' le II ^I■ 17, ' E ; it11. 11, 1 r • t as 1 y . • = . t y - = . , ty •fili MI , . "... .. ... .. .s. . t .. ! ** AZ ,J. . 1, , „ - '• c, , i 7 ' 0 3 .:: ' . !-- ' t . ', ..€, • ; " ' ; 1 , t` ,‘: = . . ti:19 --'1 .- . Z1 ' . i: * v LI. ' 7 .• L. . ..., . a In .:tt * "-., 71 '. ,t i'. t : .: ,. i r ..: ' ..• * - •,. ,-- , ‘ 1 „:"1 . i i i t i, C : , • -, , , - ii• • : :";• ' r '71 : ' f '' :", f y t . y. ' ' rr ' t i S UMW y' r. .. : _ , t k- r "r i r ' = , - -•'. .1= t . + .1 L ' =r -= = tf * ; t, a r . - .. ., . ',.. ;- Lit Otpli ':* , ! , ... , .. z4 , , a II fr ! ;. ! ! ! . - y. y. a a a ...- . „.:. r. t . z t;..:C.. . a a - , a :„.• I '... . ., a s a L., I .-, '.. a .... .., ' a • 'S ... t a i-, ,.. . ■ ''net :f. a a a a a -a.1 x a 1 1 t� lilt � t ' �• ' 1 f � s I 1 , amt l i 1 g r f £ Q n, i'-; - r 1 4 �.`I- i "C .. . . k 1 e t 1 Aga ' It 7 g 1 1 «,: . ', s o a t I ., , �€r a tQ ia a ' ` /s _�,¢e; • Y T ..ei #t - EX-3 a a Si a a a ' $ 4 ac �`,R1 as 5 Y t' a I �a @ L r $ b r di amt c`k '� t - .ire i. , ':.- I (, Y s 1. - tl - ' ' y ,�i It^d Y '' Y Y ' ).. }p t3/47 ',41, —.ai 'Xl t: 0. (II l4 1i (' .' 4. 2k .. u L I' y F + ` SZ1 ii . ' ' ' ' t'i '",'.:;,4),,.4, ' : "'"Fit.:44: ::: , , . I ai ®(I c k I Is -E ty �g x -` C S. a tR ♦ y f ' „ tE ' 0.f e 4 ` • ' � -. lit ., ?, .� EX-3 = ' �a. , . 5 • ail Et {'-4 d. . '�' ,ar },� . ,._ 2 w a , I F � did 5 f. $ idfe 1 f $ �. 'l 1 Nil a a g. 1 y ' "j 3 * ` i c 1- : pR _< d 1 ♦ f t f 6 yy J I '3: . st. a x6 v ° Y Fes I, 1 w 4 1 410 r l& t. r 8 , - Hill - .4; •- '' y'.. _ ,• _ __.. _... EX"3 a a a s a is O co 'O CD R3 RI O N CU Cn N fl C6 C CO 'fr.) r CNI a CL c a) O C Cn N L5 D C O N cO a 10 2 op a) a) co a w -c 0 -0 O c a Z �- V QU co o c a? O Li c) c Z 4— a) a) ca v a <L Q Ca Cl.) L CD— C P. _C 0 . a Q `-' t- c O O co O O ro co CU V a Ca a) nu) 'C3 ca 0 L Q c -I--' -0 'U O a)03 c a LL l_ n D i L Cn O a) To Q a Q.} i AD ate. O Q • C a) a) CCf j a 9 C j 00 0 O cB 03 a 0 c O a) c Co O_ CB C U E > a) w ' Ct 0 X CO Cn -O Cr) Ca � U O c U a O O L o O OO ..0 X O O U CH I— a) tt. -0 a a a a a a a a \ ;Jr. \ i » k \• \ \ ;••• \ ( - \ z_ � » % c k - - \ / § \ / xI - > t E § \ _ § a • 0 a ( \ a a. a a a vvr: tna) • vw 'do gC1CUav µ, wrarn .G 4 m 0 SZ N $-t H N aJ -ri $a 1d 'O O Si g 13 4J U •r4 0 -ri 0 m G. •r-4 U cn -ri Q) C Jr L •ri 7 V/ CC>,4.1 ra a C m u T1 v of a s U p�0 v 43.) 4j RI ri RS iJ tit n w } 4 u o G d .� 1J o 0 a U W C) tz4't3 W u ' •S. to ft . '0 .m N Q 4.4 ro a W pt W CC 4 a1 �4 V N .s U rt 0 v = al a) '0 o e o U --i Ti ei li • m ' 1 .0 .0 p O r . U m ro m r •p m Q. N G o 'au � QA b " 1- o > 'irtrow ,tn 4o, ' • O ° N ra4 0 31 ri a avb Kt d N � L ar N m U 4 r '0, ei al •r 1 al S O of c: y QS at N pt •4* 0 v ri ^p " .r1 .d .lJ ' Si - >. 'L� ' L u 'J Al H a }.� '- r6 p o +r y.1 al O •� H a _; w } V c a a A 0 m O �U1 ro b G4 O N ra rs O RS c n b 'O W to m 1~. ¢,.r1 al a $: Jr U a p ets w Sa Ts s w m i a V p ft, ,, -� vi aU o ,U3 b m 0 a o -•-4 G 4 c o c m '0 m >13 c,) C ' L ?' p al a) -rl r N id Q CU .r1 w 1 .0 'O i - ,i a Y+ a, T r ✓ a C ; R o G W va r u0 f -y a aI t> a a • ob � d � A a ✓ Co 'o ° r a . b c u o . n Ao eel• 0) 00 c. ( cC0 ,--1 groux v., uv 0 r, ^•1 6 1J F S.i N .0 4j A .[ ; 00 �1 O m ft tx v N 0 � . P, v a - 0 2 N V a 0 co c .L r, 1 Q Clm 0 m 1JJ: a o , ot1 U J! .0 (1,.r .p 'd 'rr E ft >+ 1J 0 Ai -r1 Cn . S.+ ,C" a' N J" .r v Cn ,r{ rH r-r 1J .'" ri 1J at •ri in >, t71 C C r > > 'X. (1' al U I O ro 't' > ri r. re -r C 0 1J 0 - 0 -H ri •-1 $4 1J Fri , }r 'L •r• C S. •rib o 0i.1H4 17 'b N el C am. F F• iJ ti .c •1-. ' QI Q1 &J r N Ii a1 (a}.) A,1.� •N CJ v 1= O at rc 3 1c al tab JJJ d U . rtai 3 U 0 in 4JJ rC) m m a a a al t O S o c. 73 ra a U 1 / ' AU a N C3// L u LD LP a / 1 Q• co c OA 4 O w v a m O/O i mN E = m W bat 0 .a F 't •.z.6 m O ". . ._ n. -,i m c ri u P L 7>H J C 'O A a iuzn 7 up U 0 p ° p a in a l a 1/40 MIME MOM b INN o o _� ', t a dill III (4\ r_. Ill G. .r a as 0 L ca a a Q 0 ...+ Ca a C n CO 0 tom as CL CD 9- U. -«- = Q _,_, 0 a) a) . 0 � a..+ N co O w E = 'a) a) U a Q V w co • ca O E a) W C O N v — 4-a = a) cn *a d a NJ F0 0 0 c = m L _- p ca ca 0 =co _ -- ca C N '0 0 J a) p = ._ 1, oii CL p a-=• 03 L- En a d a a N a) = t cn L a4.° 0 in "Fa 03 0ECDGl ._ t O z3 `� L O p n o- o a) u- .3 LL C -p = 0 LU = a -0 ca C ca Ql ca 't a ca a) co -0 0 00 o a) '5 > a) a Q cn .? o 'L s- -- o s— can) c u) = o CL) 0 Q � 0 c cn co CD a) i_ a) = a i U C Q Q- s- N = >03 = U KH I— 0 .= tC § 02 ._ a a as U cn O U A 0 0 1 O 0 .= v) C a V — co = U r ,e CL C >- LE 0 -cc tro O H a I C C CO -o t o b;p — +-' o 0 'E 0 N 4-1 C c ( C Z O cu o c . d -a n lis -c �_ '- co op Cl. o O_ C N �i O O 4) c a ® Cl... c4 cT3 E O co ,/ _ >% a) o }, 0— 0 E o o N .N o v Q -- lD cn L a v) L co .? ° Z5 we ,,_ DI -- = ca 0-0 0• fl. N co t ' co co a U 0 _ U r F- ri .E S a V o V y n C cla O co aW Q. O � O O co CIO N> N v C 00 -- C = L C 3 O- H6 Q C U O •V Q D A Q C 03 - -00, .0 _2 O _ N CU a) O O- s - E O 0 CO a 0 -0 N ° -1 >% CL ad) -0 EL -O 75 .Q O d a �- 0 LL O C .D d Ll. C� CU co 0 > d' 4-- Q- C E. O 0 — 13 ai L C a Si— — -- C R1 C 0 00 O C L > ea ca m ll O r( N d = -C c ; ell N O > V C� mc u) }CS C a E E � EOOiQ0 =' C p C Z O O w C CO" � o U N C AW C cn L a) -0 O� N N C •3 CO O -L a u) C co -o d S 0 O _ O C V �.+ _ .41..r -O S.) -O O CB = ca L C C a. N' C O a C O CO D z a. E — - .__ = �° 0 a a .. Ur ,, - {t3 7 a w ..: As �, o ? st 0 a tiii Y ! +'i s } S Y. a 1E t/I I 1•, �I g 1& 1 8 4. , aii I _ a 000 l a a a a 4 4 U an M itili Ct. (A V) 4 0 C CL 4) (:) L. a rt Ci. 1/4.# 1 - , 4 I ijil 1 •■•,f0? CA5 Fa f ik/IE i a ) , ‘4,44') 1 as \It /6 li i s I OIL • i 1 Z" ig,1 of[it 4 r i• ." 4 j - # Oe "46 :ark A al • lifr3i re.:0;44.: 4-- . 1` ',I "-• It '' . r" 44 ,a140.1". s * ? 4 ‘ '1. -.. t , 1 a s * if ' '' "* . ., . Ir.°.-17:;*. ,0*4‘,4 •• r - 1 * 41<.,: ' '. I' 7aaa.: .. ArIA • /I 3 '4 ". 001 as a a Q. CN 0i CO ii -CD elmma 0 0 at 4 Z as 0 Co E a) U H 0 a co CO _c c O U r 'i LL. 9+ d to E O O LL! L J Q O 0 '> t ~ U t-0 � U Z 0 a O) a) S0 O Q c > a) 4— < o § a) O O LJ 1. N 12 — U 0 N p cB co CO 'O CD 4— LL a) CL .- d o M Y _ 5 Q -' 0 - p 0 O Q) O L. s .O C > Cfl -C U V (3 p tE `� L O LL1 O CCI CO > a) `l 0 ai. ca O O Y O- as H c � o 0,) c U ._ 1.._ a) a — - T ag 0 0 CO cn > U OO ca �G L-- Fes— O a s_ ® E O 2 N � co ro © CO "O 4) -I V U 0 C am' CL " O E v N D `�- "` E rft cam) 0 U a) a) -C CO — a) co V ri n � � 00 a) a a a 2 a J C H o (.0 Z („ c O c LU O Y +' U c a Ira "D OL = LU •E � w L i 0 O 0 a Q Z f\ C cp co Q CD o (- a a LU = o a Q c -Y = a L) Lii Z 2 -0 C (a L �.� a O U LLJ Z w v) C3� � I Q J c _ . —`i 0 000 d' ( v z CO C9 a ° U •00 rai z O CO U U UQ s_ a) Z N � O — Q a Q mmC d. � Q o 03 o «0 E •XOo U U r-4 tY a> N a a . it I I z 1 15 2 — co O cn co O co O N O) 11 � c a) • G 1 N -@ O C I N O O t- a O O 1 on _ •-C 00 H U N I •o a7 O ' 1 --- c O Cn O >, o E n ca CC a.. 0 o Q 1 °` Y o fl -O " f co 1 N N c o L. C N a >, N a) A O O as Ql x aw cp G U O` c c a) et II w c 3 a� >1 1 O 1 J2 O co N W C C) 0 .0 O m at OD X W . a) u-i O to 1 � y A • N T .o E 11) ' Y 3 al I co y ' d > c s a) Ca M ) N L d a) .0 T 1 a) c .. R 0 = y - N o O U 5 ("6 N m 1 a) co t u) D f as m d U T > Cl- t O Q a1 O a) O O O O N a) N a) a) O 1 > m O m °3 �) a? ? O O N m a) a) �'i �'i a) m a) °D " �— X0000 � OOU) OOO 00000 CD c 0 �•- -DC W O u7 0 a M r LL) LO C) CD to CD O O r O r O c F� N A en 00 r r r r CO D) r r r r r U w O j 0 .0 I c to L a) O a) -a as - c I„. N d v m O C w U d (G U ,— 1 n AD _ N O JE N Z J r N M V LED CO Imo-. co O O r N en •7 CD 00 O) I — me ma-.. . I • , 'M� rrrrrrrrrsm..-rr. n.db'W 1181HAg NJVA!aS ONb'?(°02iriR1 ���� �4 �P at ro cu,. .; JN4V.ft {A4(1(J{NNtl1.l 4UUINNNM10� I �-S'I IS � I 1";....- •_ J11 C1YC1N-l:u11NHNIMU1 ' ,raps/ E '. 42 r ' € ' .� ` Y�.£ f" 1 c A f O• sa A.�,. .* `SCI ,� *`. •&9°t 1 ! { .. I-.1-4-,. . •••• 1 N. 'i', -0 ' pa - 'h Z xr..:._ ~'I -f1.4. , ' N I. aO 1r ti • 4. a g I1 eow k ti t ( > 5 _ '¢ a NS 9 y ;r I I '" is ill i i6 L. ., S K r x`z Ai • • w a s U O (6 E N CC N a a —�r'�> r 0,44.-ter. ' t t . '; a s .,, a' 'i '*4 t " „ _ 4 e 4 CI � s.. r ; i . ):':1 I:' a ` W "F ` is r A y ' I ti r aY NO 04, tb x .gr .EY *fi , ' 4 R O ,t , s i 1 j I f 7. ■ �j � � yi • Z at it we V x lj,, t r. j �� 1111111 r ■ 1111.11 I €x.2 I a a r a � � C O CO I v J in En inoEnoin ii) 0000inooininEnEn a N V O' I o c co o I ca I 0 X CU co CO E in O r r it) in V N O co O N-in N- N r r O N r N in N r COLU 00 CO r CV r r r r r r r r r r W II o f Et I o i2 i a o I u ° CO 000o ooinooit) 00000 `n o in O o co r in LO Q) c0 to CD O o r O r r 0 }� O ti OD r r r r CO r r r r r r 0) CU M V) co I -a 0) tin . _ I .j N Cr) �' CO f� CO O O N CO In CO t` OD (Si O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O IN J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J I a , , dl 40 4 3r7M iA•:uN.•�1 a 11aINXi IncAV71O170'OIdA1 * ua [li Ao i �I a 101 A /I I ' ')1 -A.. 1 1N3WsO I3A3O OSNNV Id 3OOlatl adMO1 ° A EI—ITT— — T-]g 4007 1 [t'' :717 00o0 3 0l61:1 a3mol Y " J ! y.v J: AO ! I K.✓, ;5 C V.i - : S s ST - , FUTURE PRIVATE ROAD _ - _ i Ria. --- . . 1 T N , 1 I ot % \"it '.-- -1- C - - ..-C--.-' 7 4r.:1- --r—1 I 'r C.: h. ) .1' I T „ ., 1 7-I i I r.-. lA Sr . t. 4 'Alit, - , , 11 'i `• ' 9 t s 'Alit, ' ' "4' r:e" •e ' " ''''Aea. i , " • . 1 'r. li■:A 'I'i k•A tr,.,t b ilaa'sk t t•t < i.A_ _ _,.. Z -...0 n . ) r 7 r- •k• --....c----- i - •-• _ -_ • k 2. cu .- A - - .. ,. 4 at fr MC 7---- 11 -' 0 . l ei . ,.,_ .,....... V aist•• PS, -- -- --- --- 7 :KR -fir -Za— At itto, -------1 I --`" ./ I' ------;—-- --- --- " - . ' , _ . • pi et ..4 .... -. 4...: ....i v.f. m W cg3 if = 4.rj • " --7 '; ,4 " ', C. ,---- - i A AAA. A i I OWFR PROOF ROAD t LC I. ...A 4 f t ,VS I ritir, la , p .nn I LOWER MIDGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ,1-0/0 it is J 'Li' 1 r • 1 LOT 12 t.a1 1 -' 0 4 r ttrans/J t TYPICAL LOT LAYOUT EXHOIT I it) . JO, f t 1 C ff 1.41° 41. 1 •••■■■.! ". ."1 fn 1 a a) 1 W U) 1 5 CO co 1 . , i CO CU 1 7C3 ! O C!) i E 4� E it O L-1 O i C W 1 I I as a) ' •` 0) o O . U C co ` ) 0_S O a tl U Q Q 0 C2 0 cp . r p co L tU N r a O CA = a) o c a) .g. Q) co ..c c LOL c �O I a) to N 0 O O O a) N O O -0 c cc V V > Z N > p 0 ' C1 2-CCS o a) N -0 c C L1J .6 o O al 0 C 0 • -o .0 m E o a) as a0 a) .0 fon I0 n -- o ca a) cn Cl) a) o ` a) 2 N nom _ O a) a r >, C a3 >, c c c v o >, c o L c as > o y -c O ,� O L a C O = L I U E a`) .x ° o m o ° > j O O E > O C „O I t C 0 4- a) a s_ a) = n 0 N O E a) Cr) co c- E rs CZ E =a o mom' as -a ° m -C N I CO .0 CD CD Q a) 0-n. o c U) a) L Ic) > ca) a) > co NJ - Q a -0 m CO` a ° E 2 o f _ U Cl) Q as a) 4— 8 2 W c 3 p ri c 45 c Q I 03 E J J C Q)co co ° c° o o ° O 15 -cp a) o I _ .0 E as aa) 0 as LL n I— CU LLI ov r ccn Z Ct c\i can Co I a F- CO 'c o L1 N O Q; t. N a : 4a ` O L. ON N- Q 4J LL 2 O LL wi J O s+W _) O ac N a 2 � O aY � N N C O 7 O � N *: CO o r N O +k N c4 um-- C Cr) C N O po d = Alt N 0 an J o 0_ rai - \ * ^^ 0 ~ ai ac CV a\ \ \ o et 8 Ws _ § ƒ ƒ � § c % - \ ) \ rk \ a a)¥ > C \ CO ƒ � 0) \ _ - f 2 \ &b. j % 2 E > 2 \ C = ( C / r- = G \ 7 f w \ = E $ c & u = I e co c I $ * $ / 2 a cQc o � cn � - ƒ 8 \ 7 j / $ ^ - 002025 g g O / r E � Cr- Co- a \ / \ a �\ • E \ I :: CD a 0 / a a \ m » g & H £ \ & Ea \ \ -C - k ;:41••.`' \ • \ -Co � < cc CNI tk F � \ / 15 0 2 ° IL 0) \ g ƒ R a3 . / / f 0 / \ \ \\ � / \ CD 4 CV at ' 2CV CO / \ � Ai / \ _ 2a \ \ _ n 2 E e G cs a / / cn $ •= .+G ana ° « � - \ o \ a co a \ ƒ \ CN 0 a — o .0 o d N Q I R i co !..14 1, 4$' O N N » ? O a O N N ari N Ii c W v o ` cv m � 0 CD N- go o a Z,0• VOA 2 o N N- C) N O � O O O d O O N sa till a 0 e s? Q oN Q of N CO 4 = 0 nr N U= COr- r _ Q) LL a 03 CD E N J O cy N Q N —3 O c T O a CO N 2 I-- = O it CO O T C O 0 CO cD O sr r a a � � I \ \ Cri I co 0 co ƒ ( e ~ C \/ - k a = = 2 _ .g = m go a y / y : e o » } a \ 2w 2t « \ 4 \ � \ N- O CD CNI CD 5 » _ 0 « �a 3 ® c / _ e / Ja £ § k { \ \ j / \ CD (13 CO _ C = \ 5 oc ° + ^ 52 \± — » � © — k .111, -5 ƒ / \\ LL \ \ i7\ \ R ® ^ 40 C N- \ 'y 2 \ \ / inC CNJ \ fif / . . � _ q / : 2 _c ƒ > o o Loo ° _ co Hr _ < I v = a a) /\ / \ \ a -\ a . � S. N- co CD _ dyer / fir 3 \ \ \ - ± >•.•® \ « 3 \ CD _ \ \ * \ \ \ 3 \ SD eNƒ \ jul ƒ\ _ 04 co o a flu2 2 R > a\ .cc \ \ \ 0 \ \ \ / \ CD 4 CV \ \ / \ Cti z > & m _ / / \ \ ƒ g _ / \ \ CO CD ocf u CV - U Cf G / 0 \ p � - : « < \ \ ) \ c \ \ } \ 4 CV a \ \ \ \\ ui \ \ \ a CO / \ Ge \ :% % m / ƒ CL xis ƒ \ _ 2 c 3 \ 2 -\ c■J CO » R \ 2 \ \ A.S. \ [Er R a _ CD a \ w t. 2 R CND CD • 3 / § 2 G , ) < / � \ \ g $ ! \ _ \ 8 _ \ / � m « \ / g \ CO j \ a \ \ < \ \ \ 0 ^` ) as \ ± , Wiz \ 2 E 5 \ ± r (N _ 0 0- \ fi e / y \ Q >6 \ a ( s 3 o j 2 , / \ \ 2 \ \ ƒ \ �\ y \ . < \ \ \ \ © Er P c \�\ \ f CO0 « 3G « a e 0 co c/ OW - \ / 8 C E o _ \ ƒt m o \ \ w \ _ / � o S y . « 2 y -a ` ' aCV / \ II E y MO / 7 \ a # \ / WI \ / G , 2 / / 0 > —CC na- c a § e - « � f - \ ` � \ \ \: 3 \ _ > 7m « / « \ c6 _ t z ƒ % \ ƒ \ \ : \ / a \ _ ^ 5 \ , / cp cp ° G / k \ a § / \ a - \ / / 2 \ 2 a . . £ En Lo- co 2 2 \ g \ ~ 0.4 c0 § a \ <\ 3 \ - C4 1;0 CD y » aa \ / 2 \ , ƒ \ / J 0 0 CI f } _a.- » CC 7 Co 2 .% / T. 0 r2R 0 CD gym w CD- \ : E \ � C 2 � a . ƒ a a C N m C ct -0 b- 2 0 > E a. E Q o a_ _a cp CI U T R O r -) N s T 'sr ' m w 0 �e N V' O N w 0 O O N �6 >• O W O CN N O - O J N CNI O N .. � N 8 co N a pp , O N aat 0 0 • (7) f \ 0 = = r \ / / X22\ \ .0 § / ) ) \ 2 \ \ 2 \ co tr. cp \ ^ � � _ \ # g G \ Ca CV 2 « c \ _ � < 1 N g ,°o $ CO C0 0 U 00100000010 e+ ,n o, aq 8 8 N CO o 1 , N W��pp MpNpW ��pp 0% da, N O ,0 66a6o 0% 00 .ti C O b of N 10 N co N O N el rl O M IA i0 O O N N .A V �0 40 eA 0% ' w M Q C M f■ a, 4 W O 0, a, e\ N M O G N M N M Mi a et M N N 03 eti 40 u, ei 40 N M Q 04 M N M' a I ' LP) ,-.4 N in V1 V■ V1 V/ V/ VI Of VI b VI VI V< VI 1A N /A IA Y/ Uf Vf IA O I i N 0 L r Ill a M � t Q r I -C C m c u v t r N m a .O C a a t 0 to C M C = m Y t C 1 p = u° « t - 0 w e `m c m d g E a d u +▪ ' O H _ j C j d W d CO m d: g V A K N « A ' cU jV Amog °p � ay . 5 .4ommuc ►- �o $° mA '� v0 ° S ,� ` d d V - v U \ c m 7 W i. W d o c r L r - c C 0 C V 9 p Y JJ 0 « O c o as — t — O r 10 C 4, ocia c t' z 0 a IA c a d C �o u a u a c C > C 0 o - 3 o W c" ° a ° ° ; ' -0 d 0 a 0 > > c cc mf` u w W w 5 CI L W ai I 3 o CU L L 0 V In cu ta. c V R N _9 r a 1aoO X ,.w ° T o I Y A 7 a s GI 2 'v a = c t - 0 7 > 0 a °-' u o du w m Q m N Y 0 C L c N O 0 O V is 1 c A C W v O O LL I ] H O c 0 v dt ; d 2 . . A c ma Zm Ay- CA d qd :°, d ' co v, 3 toz3 � t7ooYaccbi I I 5 0 a) O O 1;_-._c 0 n o , I - _COE 4) ca ca O O (� I E N N O W = CV 1 E 5 n t co Ca L. O Q O as a • ' -- p __ E § O w to n O fa o O a) as O L N v i � > CO I O. u� ._ C EE a cum cu a, Q 4] O N Q V L I ^ p V O O U Lj„ (a te— Q c_ C _ o Dv > O a) t a) (n L E a� +.. 1 co 02 Q O Q' O .fir ft c as Q- o °— a' m a C O p 0 V ca p as -3 ■I U` RI 0 U In- O p Q 0 _p v a s p O O o - C co O c c a ,— o °- i L o I co > co O E 'in a) a V ° �o C co a o O c - a v O .c ca C eta - Ct j . � o -a Ir L C E N E E a E "- CI > N CD a) m x' CD a�i c ^ 1 O ° c a) oWCnW �, .° Q N s nomn,� a� 2 c\i CO na z a) I a a a a a al 1 . 3 1 tn 1 t y. 7 8 — 1„ _ d a (!, 1 q t 8 a L L , 1 i i g x.5 61 2 I f I __„J s , ; _ ■.° i A a A 2 11 C , 1 1 \ r I 4 I / 11 A 4- i 1 e , 2 i Ail 't 41 •7 1 e 1 \ > • i ,.. r g 2 i , CU _p {2 8 0 I,___ t ) 8 1 sal III i 1 c,r , t i 4 1 . g a n L__ E ts t H i 1 - a g 5.,.` I ti a a a a a le a a ft a a ` ,=',t + , 2 Jr •. } �.. "" EYE !�I ` 3>�L <, WA C , t / , ,, ' . AMY. — '- t e ` x;'� WI + c �; 1�'. 'rr t 't t Vt{1� +tCC�r,.. y� r %t � ,L III }j�. t` k 1L. a,x a� yon d-1 + a T, A u i t a t a ., . t+ ,7 . ip a C, 3 1 to _ �� ci � ; se r � ,for t r j 0 AA 3, t t.j,,,,‘ S . :W 8 .« to ' ,..:.�. roe . -i v*, "Th- et , J V x511 r r = Y` ' i , a r i. w� r Y _h it.i'.S*# <t ,y,_ t j Y u tig, ft `fj ac t of i • ,;:;..-,"_-..r's"' f 1 z/` *"" 4' va *' - ,,._.., yr' r w } a ' i , '. it.. Ilila a ra a a a 1 1 I 1 D 0 1 = 1 a 1 I1 1 II 1 , 1 11 ' 1 • C OREGON LAND AND WATER ALLIANCE January 5, 2016 TO Deschutes Board of County Commissioners,Planning Director Nick Lelack RE: File Nos. 247-15-000194-CU/195-TP Lower Bridge The Oregon Land and Water Alliance (OLAWA) is a Sisters-based group that advocates for protection of land use laws and sustainable water policy. We believe that protecting public health and safety is an integral part of smart development. We have recently begun to follow the case for a PUD off of Lower Bridge Way. We are very concerned about the known and unknown hazards on the subject property and on the parent parcel. Given the prospect of a modification to the original proposal that nobody else has seen, it is difficult for us or others to craft an appropriate commentary about the proposal at this time. Given the gravity of the issues and the impending modification,OLAWA requests that if the requested modification is to be permitted after the hearings officer has already ruled and while the case is before the Board on appeal,then the Board should reset the 150 day clock in order to allow sufficient time for consideration of ways to address the toxic waste and dust problems that all agree are at issue with this proposal. This will allow the Board to insure the burden of abatement does not ultimately fall on Deschutes County taxpayers. Thank you, dA244- Eva Eagle kE I Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St#200 Bend,Oregon 97701 January 6,2015 RE:Lower Bridge Road,LLC's Proposed Development on rezoned property. January 6,2016 Public Hearing { File Us:247-15-000521-A,247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP 1 Dear Board of Commissioners, After testimony at the June 23rd hearing, Ms.Tia Lewis made several statements regarding testing and cleanup of the proposed planned development site and 5M-zoned property. The following are concerns regarding her comments. Ms.Lewis stated that the future responsibility for any testing and cleanup would lie with the HOA of the proposed planned development. She also stated that the monies necessary to do so would be"minimal"and"no big deal"and she repeated those statements several times. Questions and concerns are as follows: "minimal" h � 1. If the funding for cleanup is minimal then why is it being pushed onto the HOA? 2. If it truly is"no big deal"then why hasn't extensive testing been conducted by the applicant? 3. The burden of proof lies with the applicant of this issue, not the HOA. Why not conduct extensive testing by an independent agent on all lots and adjacent open space to be developed before approval of this application? 4. Mr. Daniels stated at the hearing on May 21'1 that they"wanted to be good neighbors". To sell and run,dumping the responsibility for testing and cleanup onto the new property owners is not responsible,ethical or neighborly. Again,the burden of proof lies with the applicant. 5. The right thing to do is test and clean every lot and adjacent open space before this application is approved. No person wants to live or raise their children on ground that has potential for foreseeable future hazards. The burden of proof lies with the applicant and therefore,so should the liability. The liability should not lie with the new HOA or Deschutes County. • ) 6. A clear line of responsibility should be established before approval of this application,especially when dealing with an LLC that was not formed in Oregon,thereby making it even more difficult to hold the applicant financially responsible. In the Staff Report,on page 25,staff states that an abundance of caution is vital and that the site is not suitable for residential use where plans for foreseeable future hazards are not in place and that a clear line of responsibility should be established to deal with any future detection of contaminants. The staff reiterates these concerns and recommendations regarding contamination and financial responsibility from page 22 through page 30 of their report. I agree with their recommendations and found Ms.Tia Lewis's remarks on June 23rd to be,at the least, concerning. No person should ever make light of the possibility that developing land on a potentially toxic site could cause harm to another person.On this issue, I find the attitude of Ms. Lewis and the applicant to be reckless and reprehensible. I respectfully urge you to deny this application. I Submitted, anise Taylor James Taylor 7695 NW 93rd Street Terrebonne,OR 97760 dS ) s i Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St#200 Bend,Oregon 97701 January 6,2015 I RE:Lower Bridge Road,LLC's Proposed Development on rezoned property. January 6,2016 Public Hearing File#s:247-15-000521-A,247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP 1 i Dear Board of Commissioners, The purpose of this letter is to demonstrate the need for a binding funding source for testing,cleanup, and foreseeable future hazards which may occur as a result of development in accordance with the applicant's proposal. it is also imperative that a clear line of responsibility for funding be established. Deschutes County Code section 18.128.210(A)states: 18.128.210(A): Such uses may be authorized as a conditional use only after consideration of the 1 following factors: 7. Environmental,social,energy and economic impacts likely as a result of development including Impacts on public facilities such as schools,roads,water and sewer systems,fire protection,etc. The application,on page 10,does not respond to any environmental impacts likely as a result of the development. They only mention the preservation of existing vegetation and introduction of new vegetation. The Staff Report,on page 32,states that environmental impacts could occur to residents of the PUD and nearby properties due to potential issues relating to the former mining/industrial use of the subject property and 5M zoned lands to the west. Since the applicant does not address this issue,we agree with the staff recommendation and request that Deschutes County require that a funded,binding plan for foreseeable future hazards be in place prior to approval of this application. ) As staff states on page 25 of their report that,given the former f uncontrolled and under regulated) mining and industrial use of the site,the staff believes as do we,that an abundance of caution is vital. A finding that the site is suitable for residential use is not supported where plans for foreseeable hazards are not in place. 1 • �. And we agree with staff finding to ask that this established binding fund,in an amount to be determined by Deschutes County,be used for the following testing prior to approval of the application: A. Ground penetrating radar and deep core sample testing on Tax Lots 500, 1501,1502, 1505, 1600 and 1606. B. We request that potential for groundwater contamination be discounted by DEQ and OHA,as well as possibly EPA and DOE since hazardous waste is at issue. Any and all tests recommended by these agencies must be administered prior to approval of this application. C. As staff states on page 26 of their report,dust can represent a significant respiratory hazard. The record for 2C-08-1/PA-08-1 establishes that dust from processed diatomaceous earth, which is present on the site,is of particular concern. Therefore,we ask that the funding source and plan include a 24-hour contact to deal with future generation of significant dust generated spontaneously or during construction. We ask that this funding source and plan,with clear lines of responsibility,be in place prior to approval of this application. D. We agree with the staff finding on page 27,and request that surface mining on SM zoned portions of lots 1501 and 1502 be permanently prohibited and a binding dust management plan be in place prior to approval of this application. E. Due to the complex history of the mine,we ask that independent testing agencies conduct tests on water,soils,etc.as an environmental testing agency employed solely by the applicant may not fully protect the future health of Deschutes County residents. F. We request environmental testing of the applicant's Tracts E and F on the west side of Lower Bridge Way because these tracts are bound with the east properties in this application through their inclusion as open space in order to qualify the application for consideration by meeting the 65%open space requirement. Based on the results of these tests,we ask that the amount of the funding source and specific clear lines of responsibility be determined by Deschutes County prior to consideration of this application. We ask how the funding source will be affected when Lower Bridge Road Limited Liability Corporation is dissolved due to death of,or departure of,a partner or partners,or bankruptcy? We ask that a clear line of responsibility be established for foreseeable future hazards after dissolution of the LLC;and we ask that this be in place prior to consideration of the application. Until such time as these conditions and recommendations are met,we ask that you deny this application. Res. Hy Submitted, �ylor 7695 NW 93rd Street Terrebonne,OR 97760 gomet Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St#200 Bend,Oregon 97701 January 6,2015 RE:Lower Bridge Road,LLC's Proposed Development on rezoned property. January 6,2016 Public Hearing s.2 05 File#s: 47-15-00 21-A 247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP Dear Board of Commissioners, As required by the Deschutes County Code,the Conditional Use Permit Application and Tentative Plan referenced above for a planned development within an RR-10 residential zone must meet the following stringent conditions: 18.128.210(A): Such uses may be authorized as a conditional use only after consideration of the following factors: 8. Effect of the development on the rural character of the area. 18.128.210(8): The conditional use may be granted upon the following findings: 4. The proposal is In harmony with the surrounding area or its potential for future use. t These requirements are not nebulous;they are specific. Currently,when you drive the entire length of Lower Bridge Way between the outskirts of Terrebonne to the outskirts of Sisters,one rural character is presented along the entire journey,particularly in the Lower Bridge area. The applicant does not meet, or even attempt to meet these requirements. In example,Exhibit B attached to this letter shows current residences in the Lower Bridge area as yellow dots,and the maximum potential for straightforward ten-acre lots on the applicant's property is shown as red dots. Note:this portion of the applicant's property totals 98.2 acres less approximately 4 acres for roads. Naturally,no one can know precisely where,on ten acre parcels,future residences will be built;but a straightforward RR-10 developmental approach can result in no more than nine residences built east of Lower Bridge Way. Exhibit B demonstrates that this approach maintains a density consistent with the existing rural character and would be capable of achieving harmony with the surrounding area. As such, it serves as a baseline for evaluating whether the requirements of the Deschutes County Code have been achieved. In the starkest of contrasts,Exhibit A shows the same existing residences again in yellow,with residences on the lots identified for the applicant's planned development shown in red. As is obvious, 1 1 the density of this jumble of residences does not maintain the existing rural character or make any attempt to achieve harmony with the surroundings. The view of all of the houses on these crowded lots would be unavoidable from Lower Bridge Way as it begins its descent to cross the Deschutes River. The applicant's proposal is neither inconsequential nor benign. It permanently changes the rural character of the area. As is evident from Exhibit A, In addition to high visibility from Lower Bridge Way,the incompatibility of residential density resulting from this proposal would also be highly visible from Teater Avenue just to the south, Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve along the Deschutes River,the Wildlife Habitat Conservation& Management Program Area adjacent to wildlife preserve,and the Deschutes River itself which is a State Scenic Waterway and Federal Wild&Scenic River. The applicant's proposal has already been denied by the Hearings Official through proper channels. One decision of this formal regulatory process was disallowing any land zoned FP to be included in the applicants development. This amounts to 13.84 acres as is delineated in the attached Exhibit C. The applicant now seeks special favor from the Board of Commissioners and Deschutes County to overlook this decision. In return they offer nothing of benefit to Deschutes County. The applicant seeks only their own short term financial gain. The Board of Commissioners has an obligation to protect the rural character of this historic area which is referenced in notes from the diaries of Kit Carson,John Charles Fremont,and Peter Skene Ogden. Preservation of the Lower Bridge area requires that you not be complicit in the avarice emanating from this development scheme. Keep in mind that the applicant is not without development recourse; nothing is stopping them from developing the straightforward 10- acre lots compatible with the property's zoning and in harmony with the rural character. In addition,the applicant's proposal is incompatible with conditions of their own previous favorable ruling allowing the zone change to RR-10 in the first place. The decision of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ZC-08-1,PA-08-1,document no.2009-168(page 36,item 4)required the applicant to "not develop any area within a 100-yard radius of the historic Lynch and Roberts Store Advertising sign". And yet,as is shown on the attached Exhibit C,3.33 acres of their development and much of Lot 1 of their tentative plan occurs within this protected zone. Their proposal must be rejected on these grounds alone because the applicant's performance is contrary to the conditions of the zone change. At a minimum,they must begin the conditional use application process anew,and this time it must conform to all conditions of the zone change just like the application requirements are for everyone else. The applicant further manipulates the conditions of the original zone change. ZC-08-1,PA-08-1 Document no.2009-168(page 36, items 3 and 7)stipulates that a condition of the zone change to RR-1Q is the establishment of a conservation easement and open space of approximately 30 acres(29 actual acres)situated west of Lower Bridge Way. Let me reiterate:in order for the applicant to be granted a change of zone to RR-10,they were required to permanently protect these acres from development. This is the base case for the rezoned property. In accordance with the Deschutes County Code,a conditional use permit must meet the additional standards(including open space)beyond these base case requirements. As demonstrated in Exhibit C,the applicant attempts to advantage their proposal, in an unwarranted fashion,by including this base case responsibility for conservation easement and open space as a part of their planned development open space requirements. This is clearly not allowable. The applicant suggested in their final rebuttal that there was some sort of prior knowledge on the part of the Board of Commissioners of the applicant's intention to eventually present a planned development proposal,and that this constituted some sort of prior approval for including this property in their development as open space.Obviously this could not have been the case because any such approval prior to Conditional Use application is not allowable by any standard. Moreover,this conservation easement acreage west of Lower Bridge Way has never been cleared environmentally. A history of toxic activity on this portion of the mine property eliminates it from any rational inclusion into a planned development. The result of the applicant's effort to include this conservation easement land in their planned development proposal creates a false math which provides for a deceptively high amount of open space which then is used to calculate an artificially high number of allowable planned development lots. As others will demonstrate,the succession of ownership for the applicant's property has historically received regulatory favor which is not readily available to the average county constituent. Such favor must end now and forever. The preceding arguments represent best faith efforts to research the applicant's proposal,Deschutes County Code,documents from the Board of Commissioners allowing zone change for the applicant's property to RR-10,and previous testimony. The conclusions expressed herein are the result of those efforts; prime among those conclusions is that the rural character of the historic Lower Bridge area would be impacted negatively, permanently,and in the extreme by this self-serving proposal to radically increase residential density.It must be rejected. Respectfully Submitted, or James Taylor e Taylor 7695 NW 93`d Street Terrebonne,OR 97760 F,.,�t�."'r a. ,kS.r4 c„"r 3 •,r.' a� ai a�r,s,f. 4� y l� ,1+6 4.�;4 r,•r;..r,Lte M' x r sa 4rNra a x x �. M ;i A � h. � � r/• ,ar ,J i u k r a °d I t+w Yt Wir '" , � t ,F i 1 1 9 % ,4- ,,, ▪ i , iF� 1' • t i ` Ne'^$?, t"" w A r ' w , -.n�, ti w r ? , " " kri E"F" b(. �1 i+1Cr 1' !, ',, ' ,y a , 9 w p S▪ ro4 " *- rol,a Y v. tw Sr Stiit h ti�rMA �4.'ti " M. yd„ ' r 4 �v.,41,1,>ed 4-r„?o.- Vt3 bv• q F X �'ky, r h q+.'?w'k t• \: R a +PX �r x S�]' +`wii tF'�w b � µAl� 1 c� t„ rY =*a' r1 rtiN.N<FIA.lai,'.- * ,,p. t.,„ , ro'} ''.;-:'"?4':::;;I' ,', l� ; *' 'w . • 4 i i S a M ,,,%4.t414.,„..4;.:i4”' r;i.',,,it.'44'..;,*rp*5.4,1.?,,i0,--.'?.'°:'..nt■N.,.+'.'‘.$.,.1.4 4.4,,,,,i,"„,,,,,,,• '',t': "4/Ire .f.• r rr' y �• �� :4iij 4, ' �r• tE � d I "r i � :1,d44't+A -4''',''-` �4 ,-4�"; �a r "'r{r' 7 W��1 �Z"NZ� "` 1 7 . S �, B EN• C� %+�' rro �""s^ r r$ " ,,YI x'"Nar „"¢ ' a s ,S1.,,,,'4"1'1,' A w'11 e 7:', z',r ' '" 44 1prrl" 3w♦♦1'.4 -::° �F a k ��:r,�1 r'T ..p A L ' .A',�v�b xi " dt a v ,I .:', "'0,,'..-.-?,-r� ,s*f . AK .• 4 � ( J+; s i ,, -- J� k .; } . ,ay y,"' 4� "0, +. p' a '',• i�-t .4"f'4."-♦ tr �� .i fi; t >� y,41, d*"'" j ' �' r w. � r t4: ti A 1 4 � ," ^C�4 1".t:-.-,,,,. T w▪, w.„tia ” , „�t R��S kb r ,t".,..,,,i yM;G'4,,, 'A' i M" ;. ''' 7aw J ro , }" " , f' l• w t S" " • ,./?,.,.- 1 ? C 9'% � + ins x & i c i:: r ▪ .4i'''''' w • �k ',41^' ^ '' wc F'rM „:4J.,,!,,ri' '' .! .t.,:;'?►:""+ 'i`y` + R '' ) r,,` n1 -...,,„.p,+:r ►• � q .;! ai u 7, r 'f a l,..-y .i r' p �,� . %. ," r.„ � i� t !•4 A, te * � + A r i 4 ,. , .- p ''' {. M• . ri F.wi e l '� • 1it4▪ " r 8 ''/'. w i„A Jrr�T re �+ F 9�, .� w +� ( � `ai c Rg"i▪ MRr+tip x'r■ 11 r▪ o• ; d ' 4 h' a/I , ' .'}. . 4r..*` 'tom xx'.' ,.., .. wAip re ▪, y4 ' ■ � 'r '' 1. • 1 t n y� J Ry ' / ,t:i:. dr . • X „:t 1, .t '6. . - ;.." i , �it/74'''. : � , V " �d...� `„ , , few i M. - ',,y r d+1 ",, y, > m� . , * y 1 • ,'� r I` .a. "''R t.iµ*'' ,C, ,w ,,?,;',;"-;"`,1,'...-'::;•:,,, .." s'''':-..„.i'l'`',,:.”',"'.. "" ,,45‘„ i'A,;„ i''; . . ',et .2,1 't,.". ,, , .p,4 i,1.0.''„f(-,,, ''..*',- N 'lie..- '..' . '' .4. r..., ,-.." , ,,„„ ,. r..,_.!„=,.''.',. :I.Y, , .r ',;`y rt.., ".J a } i1iw J j(w "sn :7.'1,4.,,,e ,J1 fy�, F� ', ' h t� ` , a • vim¢ nrF J,'UX;� , d 1 F,w .y , "L ' ±.u,v1' a•, 'e ,r t F„ r y.""'� ,q; b' '' ! 4 .# y m ..▪ ` "4 "tii.,y, ( ,O,''''▪,:,) i tS ,_' , -q��J,,N 49 pr ,'i ° .. ,i3 , e nc., S'.$.,-,,,, = r ',a Y � 5 J '.w ),,'C' r 'a;v°v�l ws.0 :;vz Rural Character /Applicant Proposal ' Existing Residences =Yellow /New Residences = Red a 6�:``�r G w 4, .r Y,'.`L".:.'•�Y•f�i r�Y `8.i...-.�...l•��.aa t''.•:,.a+ri? ��k`�,'1 , A p 1:-\::','' „�,'y!t l r •.,...':.'.��.r.+� *M1 t';:}";.', . WpW# � . m"ir{w .y tl■ tS n , � I yx FYI , Y l w d e a • ,. �, '„ �w Y}i .�" �' xa ' "M{� � ' n T,,n M µ'; � r!ttx m ;� kiw`R �r,r'*°�q y'' �'. °�� 'k ! h)11.,,,A-,,.- k� SKy �-,^i ;� � R k I , y: * "I x I rg L� Y �' I ? �C+ A r Y r 4u d y 1 r , r.''' a !`i A \ r - T ty w," j . A 4,� Er r j: i`t }"`,ar a Y 1 a #. x;',i u ^ a sY t R . y� f ,i5 ' Y i R . ,t J r �? �4 d';-...7;::-.:,!:',. .;14, w Fw t 1 i" r ^4 ';r A$ 'riper 5 4i} � y'� r " Y F4 Y'„a i r. A +„,t� d R t ,,,„:",i,!..; ,r :, t %,.� ' y K ., 'i ° -T ..•y � �. yi ^A i ,,i ,”A 7 r .„- 1'..i" ;1';i'-'''''''' 6 j', qM [' `!gyy, St a tu xXM w + w'.� ml p: ir:: /e :a FA ; ot.{•r , e,�t•w a ± ? +1" , ',1,.",,::',.2. M1 r At � ? r' . s.° r } y ,, k t .A .,,,,„4.,,,,,. *i e •r,ro i a,' 'r k r " xa X 1 r•L 4 ,111'1,.,',60.�y i7 .<6 0...!„ :4 411$1.1 �r wM K rYy ,Y• w r 4 '�t,4 ' X, \ j a NF'py � n?" 1 *.I � 'e b/ry:,,. tar� � 7R w+Y`w Ylt t�^ i w� m ,`�:y` '1. {lY. Y 0. ,A I,A"eYS�.py p Lh.� tl � y" ^y r' � 1 �I ( 44, ..a" �{ • tl T T {i1 w ,y L . `" �;.,H \ � iN .f r,,._$.t w y,,' ;‘?"'...`,„:2,-;„.4' 0,'", � 7�C tk .- M T+r„ ..;411i ,-;,,,,„,..%!.-,,..r,,.,,.,.41.442*,; :. .,,,,,,,c,!,r,i,:.,,,,, ...ip*-.,,,rt..,e;4...,,,,..7.,i, 7.•�tzr rh 4a� k , ' , �x�";,„1:-..,--- 4i., F" 46 a '7,. , , ,4:'414:4;,, '!';'1.7 n yy ,-. y,r n •r Y � n N SA."y ry �{ n q'�r� 1 " a / y F ? : n w y y0 "Jr S� t a Y � W� ' jti '''..,*".6 l . (f S6'.;'''',''' ; 4 A f IT ; rI// -2,1,3- ;lW Sx J d r�T,Y d yu ,•-∎'*kP ,� . .;• a�. .- �y rh f k^Yw< w '," i ,, k} Mk ; � :1",. 7t ''' :;°' 46' 'PI 1 ; n.r T r � � 146 1 a �� Y + s `+ fir Y' y �r � : 5J+ t, .,"' t on . ; ? m��1 '� 6;• t r' t� y •y C A. �`w y + � ,S � m f IR �6 kr � �EN . " 2,1 4 , , i , 'd t AT : S r y"�r �,4{a 1 f`iA�.x A e ) x , w , '• "+ ° •rp' w, : a. 1 a tl S k y �as CC', 'KF r g r l� a r W 1�v r S tr B"ii a " '* (d..1 : •;"tc rRti ,,,:-.,,„Rural Character / 10 Acre Parcel Comparison Existing Residences =Yellow/New Residences= Red Residences --= Red . µa..., �.. r► k9,r, f �,,„, ,,, ---�TAN 29.: AC FBI ' t.:()NSI I.'IA LION I ASI= MI N'I, e,µ +. d } ,—�r,.,'7. 6i 4P9 BLUE - 13.84 ACk S FF' TRACT C .'4 1g.1 ACRESy 1 rc, YAR�� �tAUIIJS s. HI�Ti)I�Jf: l YNCH ANI) Iz()IiE�RTS :�{CiN r, y � Nii„ - O ” fir s,.le ' 1 r , •GREEN 3 33 ACRES 9 *, - . w.v R T)1-LATCH = 95I: r - A , aE RR-10 1� /z4 i I RAC: IM , °, LIE�1/ ri,(.)P e «.,.. �rV 9.9 ACRES 13 ° y. a- j711{emu 14 'r� "° .. " .w.l. r •. .. t w� .. Pmi';, t. 19 "msµ y., "' I :_ 1.F . ''.1. r n r w " AM.! Ma r . x SCALE: 1" = 500' IN THE MATTER BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS LOWER BRIDGE ROAD, LLC, ) SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION TO ) APPLICANT'S APPEAL Applicant/Appellant. ) File Numbers 247-15-000194-CU and ) 247-15-000195-TP - ) Decision of Deschutes County ) Hearings Officer Kristian Kibak and 8801 NW 93rd Lane LLC, an Oregon limited liability, by and through Jordan Ramis, PC, attorney Steven L. Shropshire, appear as interested parties and present the following comments for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC"). INTRODUCTION Mr. Kibak is a member of 8801 NW 93rd Lane LLC, which is the owner of Lot 8 in the Eagle Rock Subdivision. An aerial image of Lot 8 and Applicant's property is attached as Exhibit A. Lot 8 is a 25-acre parcel with approximately V2 mile of Deschutes River frontage. It is located due east of Applicant's proposed Planned Unit Development ("PUD") high-density residential subdivision and Applicant's remaining land holdings (the former Diatomite mine and hazardous waste dump). Lot 8 is directly across the Deschutes River from the proposed location of PUD lot nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Needless to say, Mr. Kibak has a keen interest in the proposed development and in the preservation of the natural and rural character of the area. OPPOSITION SUMMARY Mr. Kibak submits this statement in opposition to Applicant's appeal of the Hearings Officer's September 11, 2015 decision (the "HO Decision"). The HO Decision, which involves 101 pages of careful analysis, denied the proposed PUD based on findings that the application fails to comply with all applicable regulations. Applicant's notice of appeal raises 24 different issues for appeal. This Submittal does not seek to address each of those 24 issues in detail; however it touches on the majority of those issues.' The Hearings Officer did her job well. Her thorough evaluation of the facts and law in this matter resulted in a well-reasoned and well-supported decision to deny Applicant's proposed PUD. The Hearings Officer has correctly concluded that Applicant's use of the PUD approach to squeeze as ' Mr. Kibak reserves the right to supplement this Submittal during any continuance or open record period to address arguments and evidence introduced during the BOCC's de novo hearing process. Page 1 —SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS Pc Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax:360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747 2\LJK/1/6/2016 many lots as possible out of its property is fraught with insurmountable challenges. Applicant failed to meet its burden of proof before the Hearings Officer, and it should not fare any better in this de novo proceeding before the BOCC. The PUD approach is simply the wrong development model to use on this very challenging property. The site of this proposed high-density development is uniquely complicated and compromised as a result of mining, dumping and related industrial uses. It is further complicated by the outstanding natural character of the surrounding land and water resources including state scenic waterway and federal wild and scenic river status for the adjacent stretch of the Deschutes River as well as the adjacent Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve. The PUD proposal and the Applicant's effort to push the limits to force as many lots as possible through the approval process will give rise to the proverbial hydra. If the BOCC dispatches the immediate challenge by approving the application, 19 more challenges will rise up as each lot comes before the BOCC for site plan review. Even more challenges will certainly arise as the developer,homebuilders, and residents are forced to contend with impossible lot configurations, legacy contamination issues such as airborne hazardous dust, and water supply challenges. The Applicant has developed a PUD that exceeds the number of lots allowed in the applicable zone, has willingly configured the lots to make them undevelopable without future special exceptions from set-back requirements, and seeks to defer important environmental investigation and remediation actions until much too late in the land use approval development process. These problems are based on the following substantive flaws in the application and deficits in the record: 1. Applicant impermissibly seeks to count approximately 30 acres Flood Plain (FP) zoned land toward the PUD land total so that it can meet the 65 percent open space requirement and the one dwelling per 7.5 acre maximum development density ratio. 2. Applicant's proposed lot configuration is not adequate to assure that each proposed dwelling would meet the applicable rimrock, scenic waterway, and yard setbacks. As a result it has not demonstrated that each lot will permit the siting of a dwelling, on-site septic system, and water supply well, with related separation requirements. 3. Applicant has not demonstrated that it can feasibly address all the environmental contamination issues on the PUD site and adjacent property, including toxic dust control. As a result, it has not proven the property is suitable for residential development in light of historical and potentially current environmental contamination. 4. Applicant has not demonstrated that it can feasibly obtain legal authorization to secure a permanent water supply for the development. 5. Applicant has not demonstrated that the development is consistent with the federal Endangered Species Act or with the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The record reflects that County planning staff has offered the Applicant a number of alternative residential development pathways that would allow it to obtain approval without the significant complexity that is created by the present PUD application. However, the Applicant has Page 2—SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS Pc Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax:360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747_2\LJK/1/6/2016 apparently rejected those options in favor of pressing forward with an untenable PUD application, coupled with a threat of a constitutional takings suit if the application is denied or conditioned. Those claims are without merit and should not be allowed to distract from the substantive issues presented by this application. We therefore request that the BOCC affirm the HO Decision by entering a decision making specific findings regarding the applicable code sections, their interpretation, and the Applicant's failure to meet its burden of proof with respect to those criteria. DETAILED DISCUSSION A. Applicant impermissibly seeks to count approximately 30 acres Flood Plain (FP)zoned land toward the PUD land total so that it can meet the 65 percent open space requirement and the one dwelling per 7.5 acre maximum development density ratio. The only zone contained in the proposed planned development that authorizes planned developments as a conditional use is the Rural 10 zone (RR— 10 zone). DCC 18.60.030. The other zones, Flood Plain (FP) and Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) do not permit planned developments. The RR-- 10 zone requires that lots created through subdivision p q bd vision be no less than g 10 acres in size, and establishes a standard density of one unit per 10 acres. 18.60.060(C). Through the planned development conditional use provision, it is possible to reduce this standard density to an equivalent density of one unit per 7.5 acres, and to meet that reduced density with lots that are less than 10 acres in size. 18.60.060(C). Because planned developments constitute an. exception to the zone standards, an applicant must make a showing that the application satisfies special criteria associated with planned development review. The review criteria applicable to a planned development are set forth under DCC 18.128.210. The Board is required to consider 14 factors set forth under sub-part (A), and is required to make findings regarding 8 criteria set forth under sub-part (B). Therefore, all applications for planned developments are required to include the materials and information required for approval of a subdivision as specified in DCC Title17 (Subdivision/Partition Ordinance) and the materials and information required for approval of a conditional use as specified in DCC Title 18. Review criteria that appear particularly relevant in the context of the present application include DCC 18.128.210 subsections: (B)(2)—requires a finding that the proposed development conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; (B)(3)—requires a finding that any exceptions from the standards of the underlying district are warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the development plan and program; (B)(4)—requires a finding that the proposal is in harmony with the surrounding area or its potential future use; (B)(5)—requires a finding that the system of ownership and the means of developing, preserving and maintaining open space is adequate; (B)(6)—requires a finding that sufficient financing exists to assure the proposed development will be substantially completed within four years of approval; Page 3 — SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS PC Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax:360.567 3901 52712-73696 2058747 2\LJK/1/6/2016 (B)(7)—requires a finding that sixty-five percent of the land is to be maintained in open space; (B)(8) —requires a finding that adequate provision is made for the provision of natural resources such as bodies of water, natural vegetation and special terrain features. In addition to the burden imposed on the Applicant under DCC 18.128.210, the Applicant in this case bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with requirements imposed by the BOCC in conjunction with a prior 2008 plan amendment/zone change decision. See, for example, Hearings Officer 2015 Decision, Page 47. The PUD application originally incorporated 157 acres, split zoned to include approximately 10 acres Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), acreage along the river zoned Flood Plain (FP), and remainder Rural Residential (RR-10) land. The Hearings Officer explicitly concluded that the EFU and FP lands cannot be included in the PUD proposal, and concluded that the portion of the subject property remaining after the EFU and FP zoned land is subtracted would not be large enough to permit 19 residential lots. See Hearings Officer Decision, Page 9, Conclusions of Law. The Applicant submitted a December 31, 2015 Modification Application ("Modification")proposing to remove 10.4 acres of EFU zoned property located at the southern boundary of the subdivision. The Modification continues to rely on inclusion of FP lands to support the PUD proposal in a manner that conflicts with explicit FP ordinance provisions. The Modification presents two questions: 1) whether the proposed lot line adjustment included in the Modification effectively and legally removes all EFU lands from the PUD, and 2) whether the Applicant can move forward with a PUD a pp lication that relies upon incorporation of FP land as open space. Because the Applicant cannot move forward with a PUD applicant that incorporates FP land, the Board has a legitimate basis to deny the application as presented. The Applicant's Notice of Appeal indicates that the Applicant cannot calculate the exact Flood Plain acreage because "the County's zone boundaries are based on a map which when applied to the subject property is so grossly inaccurate that it extends under the surface of the river in some areas and up the side of a vertical cliff in others."See Applicant's 2015 Notice of Appeal, Page 1, footnote 1. While the Applicant may have valid concerns about the accuracy of the Flood Plain mapping, the burden is upon the Applicant to present a thorough and complete application as opposed to raising generalized challenges regarding the accuracy of existing zone designations. These concerns could and should have been addressed prior to submittal of the present application, through affirmative action by the Applicant to complete a flood map amendment or similar process as recommended by County staff during the pre-application meeting. See January 4, 2016 Planning Staff Memorandum, Item 5. To the extent that the Board determines that the Applicant should be afforded an opportunity to supplement the record on this issue, a continuance will be necessary. Page 4 —SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS PC Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax 360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747 2\LJK/1/6/2016 The Applicant acknowledges that subdivisions and open space are both explicitly listed as uses authorized in the Flood Plain zone, but planned unit developments are not. See Applicant's December 31, 2015 Correspondence to Deschutes County Legal Counsel, Page 2, B; see also DCC 18.96.040. The Applicant suggests that the Board should nevertheless interpret the ordinance as allowing the planned development proposal to include the FP zoned property as open space. On appeal the Applicant proposes that this Board should reach the unfounded conclusion that the listing of"open space" as an outright permitted use in the FP zone means "open space associated with planned development," despite the fact that neither planned development nor cluster development are permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the FP zoning text (in contrast to standard "subdivision or partitioning," which are explicitly included in the FP zoning text). The Applicant's suggested interpretation is contrary to the plain language of the Flood Plain ordinance, and would improperly increase density and the number of small view lots clustered on the most sensitive lands with the greatest resulting aesthetic impact. Additionally, the Applicant's suggested interpretation is contrary to fundamental principles that guide interpretation of regulatory provisions. Questions regarding statutory interpretation begin with the plain language of the statute and context. State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160, P.3d 1042 (2009), En Banc. ORS 174.010 takes this basic principle one step further by providing that in the construction of a statute, "the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all." Where a legislature or administrative agency uses a particular term in one provision, but omits the term from a related provision, the term is considered not to apply to the related provision. Perlenfein and Perleenfein, 316 Or. 16, 22, 848 P.2d 604 (1993), En Banc. Mr Kibak asserts that otherwise undevelopable FP lands should not be leveraged to increase the density of a rural planned development. This is a logical explanation for why the existing Flood Plain ordinance explicitly allows subdivisions and open space in the FP zone, but does not authorize planned development and cluster development. A rural planned development consisting of dense residential lot configurations (5 residential units per 10 acres)positioned on the edge of the canyon to maximize views and value is quite different than standard rural residential subdivision consisting of one residential unit per 10 acres. Contrary to the Applicant's argument, the listing of"open space" as an authorized use within the FP zone for standard subdivisions, but not for planned developments, makes both legal and practical sense. This is because a rural planned development achieves density benefits and development opportunities not afforded to standard rural subdivisions. The term "open space" is not defined in DCC Title 17 (Subdivisions) general definitions. The term is defined in DCC Title 18 general definitions as: Page 5 --SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS PC Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Rend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax:360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747_2\LJK/1/6/2016 • Lands used for agricultural or forest uses and any land area that would, if preserved and continued in its present use: A) Conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; B) Protect air, streams or water supply; C) Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches, or marshes; D) Conserve landscaped area such as public or private golf courses, that reduce pollution and enhance the value of adjoining or neighboring property; E) Enhance the value to the public of adjoining or neighboring parks, forest, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or other open space; F) Enhance recreation opportunities; G) Preserve historic, geological and archaeological sites; H) Promote orderly urban development; and I) Minimize conflicts between farm and nonfarm uses. DCC 18.04.030. DCC 17.16.100(A)requires that a standard subdivision must provide for the preservation of natural features and resources such as streams, lakes, natural vegetation, special terrain features, and other natural resources. These features would logically be preserved through"open space" designation in a standard subdivision where the standard subdivision's density is not dependent upon the dedication of"open space" to achieve a density bonus or benefit. The term "open space" is used in standard subdivision code section 17.24.060(Q)(1)(a), which requires a Land Divider's Declaration to declare that he has completed dedication of any common improvements, such as streets, bike paths, walkways, parks or open space in order to meet the land dedication requirement of DCC 17.44.010. The Flood Plain ordinance simply makes it clear that a developer of a standard subdivision could dedicate FP zoned land as open space. DCC 17.36.170 provides that the size, width and orientation of parcels in a standard subdivision "shall be appropriate for the location of the land division and for the type of development and use contemplated, and shall be consistent with the lot or parcel size provisions of DCC Title 18 through 21..."A developer of a standard subdivision not receiving any planned development density or configuration bonus could elect to designate FP zoned land as unimproved"open space" for the common benefit of all owners within the subdivision, and the Flood Plain ordinance explicitly authorizes such designation. By contrast, a rural planned development proposal should not be allowed to include FP lands to achieve a density bonus and configuration benefit beyond the standard zoning density. If the BOCC adopts Applicant's argument, it would necessarily follow that FP zoned acreage could be included in all PUD applications to support increased resulting development densities. One ironic result of the interpretation proposed by the Applicant is that FP zoned lands could be grouped within planned development applications to enable applicants to achieve greater density on high scenic valve waterfront properties than could otherwise be achieved on property with less aesthetic value to the public. It follows that the Applicant's suggestion that the planned development can incorporate land (FP zoned) for which planned development is not a permitted or conditionally permitted use is contrary to ORS 215.416(8)(a). This section provides that approval or denial of a permit application shall be based on standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance ... and which shall relate approval or denial of a permit application to the zoning Page 6—SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS Pc Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax:360.567 3901 52712-73696 2058747_2\LJK/1/6/2016 ordinance and comprehensive plan for the area in which the proposed use of land would occur ... ." ORS 215.416(8)(a). Similarly, the Applicant's attempt to box in the current Board by asserting that the 2008 rezone decision was based on the now proposed planned development is inappropriate. The 2008 rezone decision cannot be stretched to bind the current Board to approve a planned development that fails to comply with plain code provisions that apply to the FP zoning designation, plain code provisions that apply to planned developments, and Comprehensive Plan provisions that apply to the present conditional use application through DCC 18.128.010(A) and DCC 18.128.210(B)(2). The Applicant has repeatedly disregarded Planning Staff recommendations regarding alternative options to avoid the noncompliant inclusion of FP lands in the planned development proposal. Instead the Applicant requests an interpretation by the BOCC that is contrary to the plain language of the Flood Plain ordinance, and that would improperly increase density and the number of small view lots clustered on the most sensitive lands with the greatest resulting aesthetic impact. B. Applicant's proposed lot configuration is not adequate to assure that each proposed dwelling would meet the applicable rimrock, scenic waterway, and yard,setbacks, and as a result it has not demonstrated that each lot will permit the siting of a dwelling, on- site septic system, and water supply well,with related separation requirements. 1. Rimrock Setback At the time the Hearings Officer considered the application, the Applicant and planning staff actively disagreed as to the existence and location of rimrock within the proposed planned development. See Hearings Officer Decision, Page 37. DCC 18.04.030 defines rimrock as: piny ledge, outcropping or top or overlying stratum of rock which forms a face in excess of 45 degrees, and which creates or is within the canyon of the following rivers and streams: (1) Deschutes River ... For the purpose of DCC Title 18, the edge of the rimrock is the uppermost rock ledge or outcrop of rimrock. DCC 18.04.030. The Applicant now appears to agree that rimrock exists in the areas of concern. The Applicant has represented to staff that the location and mapping of"all rimrock on the lots" was completed subsequent to the Hearing Officer's decision now subject to the Applicant's appeal. See December 31, 2015 Applicant correspondence to County Legal Counsel, P. 3, section 2. In theory this recent mapping effort should enable the Applicant to depict the building envelope on each lot, with the required rimrock setbacks and proposed increased setbacks to demonstrate compliance. The concern, however, is whether the short-notice rimrock mapping effort is accurate. An examination of aerial photos of the subject portion of the site reveals a significant difference in the color of the earthen matter in the vicinity of the rimrrock. A significant concern Page Pa 7—SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS PC g Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax:360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747 2\LJK/1/6/2016 is that rimrock features may have been buried by past soil relocation activities associated with aggregate mining on the site. Adequate opportunity should be provided to interested parties and the BOCC to ensure that the rimrock mapping recently proposed by the Applicant is accurate in light of the unusual soil characteristics visible through aerial photos. Rimrock review must occur concurrently with evaluation and decision on the current proposal, and should not be"punted"through conditions to be addressed at some later time. Local governments generally may not fail to adopt findings addressing a relevant approval criterion and then attempt to excuse or cure that failure by imposing a condition of approval that the approval criterion must be satisfied. Green v. Douglas County 67 Or LUBA 234 (2013). The Green case acknowledges that occasionally objective and easily verifiable subject matter may be addressed through a condition of approval, as contrasted with subjective and more discretionary subject matter that requires explicit concurrent findings. Given the initial dispute between Planning Department staff and the Applicant regarding whether rimrock even existed on site, given the Applicant's subsequent action to have a rimrock identification report generated within a tight timeframe, and given concerns based on aerial photos indicating that rimrock may have been covered by soil, the rimrock issue should be characterized as subjective and discretionary subject matter warranting an explicit finding based on thorough evaluation by the Board. 2. Failure to Demonstrate Feasible Lot Configuration. The Hearings Officer found that the conditional use criteria of DCC Section 18.128.015(A)(1) apply to this application and she found the criteria require a finding that Applicant demonstrate the suitability of the subject property for PUD development, considering among other items,the PUD's lot configuration. HO Decision at pp 41-42. This is a correct interpretation of the code. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the PUD configuration as proposed would allow for actual development of individual lots in light of the rimrock, scenic waterway, and yard setbacks. Even if the Applicant introduces evidence of the rimrock locations and the resulting building envelopes, Applicant has not demonstrated that the remaining land will be of a suitable size to permit the siting of a dwelling, on-site septic system, and water supply well, with all related separation requirements. Finally, because Applicant has squeezed the maximum number of lots out of the PUD configuration, it will have very little, if any, leeway to reconfigure the PUD lots in response to any of the setback or spacing issues discussed in the HO Decision. C. Applicant has not demonstrated that it can feasibly address all the environmental contamination issues on the planned development site and adjacent property, including toxic dust control. As a result, it has not proven the property is suitable for residential development in light of historical and potentially current environmental contamination. 1. Dust Control. Through the 2008 BOCC plan amendment/zone change decision, the BOCC found that in response to diatomite dust conditions on the property and related notice of violation issued by the Page 8 —SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS PC Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax:360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747 2\LJK/1/6/2016 II Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the owners of the property obtained a temporary water permit, purchased mitigation credits, installed a pivot and began using an existing well to water a portion of the site to minimize dust. The Board concluded that this, in conjunction with implementation of best management practices to address blowing dust would maintain local air quality. The Applicant has a burden to establish that the measures cited by the Board in 2008 have been adequately implemented and maintained. See Hearings Officer 2015 Decision, Page 44. This application should not be approved in light of significant and unanswered questions about whether this site is safe for human occupancy, and in light of the fact that basic dust control measures, at issue for more than seven years, have not been successfully completed by the Applicant. Daniels Group correspondence dated January 15, 2008, addressed to Frank Messina with DEQ, constitutes a response to DEQ's January 4, 2008 Notice of Nuisance Determination regarding nuisance levels of dust from the site. The correspondence states that"[t]he goal of the ownership group for this site is to attempt to mitigate any fugitive dust concerns..."See Daniels Group January 15, 2008 correspondence. The 2008 correspondence cites to the Lower Bridge Road Dust Mitigation Project work plan, and indicates that the work plan"is in its early stages of implementation." The Applicant's own expert, Maul, Foster and Alongi evaluated the site and issued related findings and conclusions in correspondence dated February 29, 2008. The Applicant's own expert relied heavily on the presumption that dust control measures established in the Work Plan would be successfully implemented. The correspondence states that"if the dust control measures outlined in the Work Plan recently approved by the Oregon DEQ are implemented, it is unlikely DE at the site could pose unacceptable health risks."See Maul, Foster and Alongi February 29, 2008 correspondence, emphasis added. This statement from the consultant containing a double negative is a far cry from a definitive finding of no future health risks that a parent would want to hear before moving to this proposed development. More than seven years have passed since the 2008 correspondence regarding serious, nuisance- level dust conditions on the site. Yet it is clear from the current Hearings Officer findings, issued after the Hearings Officer's recent on-site inspection, that the Applicant has failed to successfully implement dust control measures established in the Work Plan. See Hearings Officer 2015 Order, Page 51. The Hearings Officer personally conducted an on-site inspection of the subject property, and concluded that "[a]lthough the applicant states its dust control measures on SM Site 461 `were successful,' the Hearings Officer's site visit observations indicate the opposite. Hearings Officer 2015 Order, Page 51. "I [Hearings Officer] observed that on much of SM Site 461 the introduced vegetation has not taken hold, and as a result large areas of diatomaceous earth remain exposed...". Hearings Officer 2015 Order, Page 51. The Applicant's own plan, set forth in the Lower Bridge Road Dust Mitigation Project Document from at least seven years ago, acknowledges that stabilization of the bare areas on the Page 9 —SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS PC Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Pax:360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747 2\LJK/1/6/2016 site is necessary to "improve the site to make it more appropriate for residential development," and provided that stabilization work"will take place continuously over the next 12 to 18 months." Lower Bridge Road Dust Mitigation Project Document, Pages 1 and 3. Emphasis added. By Applicant's own admission, the serious dust conditions on the site render the site inappropriate for residential development. Yet, as of 2016, the Applicant has failed to accomplish this fundamental requirement. This is a trend that has repeated itself since 2008 and before. The Applicant expresses concern about the resources it has devoted to attempt development on this particular site. See Applicant's Notice of Appeal, Page 5. But a BOCC decision regarding whether this site is safe for human occupancy should not be influenced by such concerns. Applicant's complaints regarding expenses incurred in this development venture fail to acknowledge past benefits and profits that resulted from historical activities on the site that contributed to its present condition. The Applicant seeks to develop a uniquely complicated and compromised site, and should fully expect that human health and safety will be a fundamental priority in all BOCC decisions. The Applicant should also expect the BOCC to impose significant and long-lasting financial assurance conditions if the development application is approved. To the extent that the Applicant might argue that dust is not controlled but is "clean," a more thorough evaluation of such representation is warranted in light of the site's history. On November 14, 2014, DEQ provided comments to The Daniels Group following review of the Remedial Investigation Work Plan for the East Parcel of the Lower Bridge Site. It is unclear at this point based on the record and seems unlikely that the Applicant has completed associated requirements. 2. Hazardous Waste Through the 2008 BOCC plan amendment/zone change decision, the BOCC found that hazardous waste violations on the site were addressed only to the level of industrial use standards. The Board conditioned the 2008 approval such that the Applicant now has a burden to establish that the site's hazardous waste remediation has been completed to residential standards in all portions of property subject to planned development. See Hearings Officer 2015 Decision, Page 45. The record fails to establish that all land proposed for planned development has been cleaned of hazardous waste to a level safe for human occupancy. The record fails to establish that adequate investigation and cleanup of hazardous waste occurred on the planned development property or the adjacent mine property and fails to establish that present day hazardous waste standards applicable in the context of residential use are satisfied. The application fails to incorporate information regarding the actual hazardous waste conditions on all land subject to this proposal. It is impossible to draw any well-founded conclusion regarding current hazardous waste conditions. Page 10—SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RA.MIS PC Attorneys at I.,aw 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone.541-550-7900 Fax:360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747_2\LJK/1/6/2016 The Applicant does cite to summary type documentation issued by DEQ regarding hazardous waste clean-up efforts that took place historically. The concern is that the DEQ findings and conclusions were based on standards not applicable in the context of intense residential development. The site was historically contaminated with waste disposed of at the site, including solvent sludge (contaminated with lead and PCBs), cyanides, chromium, caustic sand and radioactive waste. See December 30, 1987 Preliminary Assessment, prepared by the Oregon Dpt. of Environmental Remedial Action, and produced to the U.S. EPA Region 10 Superfund Program Management Section. For example, measurements of gamma radiation levels were obtained at up to 20 mR/hr, with repeat readings between .15 to 3 mR/hr, with radioactive materials defined as those with gamma radiation levels greater than .057 mR/hr. Id. at Page 4. On January 18, 1985, DEQ issued a letter summarizing hazardous waste clean-up efforts initiated in 1983. These efforts included removal of at least 691 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste and four dump truck loads of dried sludge and contaminated soil, and removal of 106 55- gallon drums of radioactive waste. The 1987 Preliminary Assessment that followed the 1985 "clean up" summarizes potential health effects resulting from exposure to lead as: weight loss, weakness, anemia, general malaise with gastrointestinal and central nervous system complaints, and brain damage. It summarizes chromium as a potential human carcinogen, as well as an irritant and corrosive that can enter the body by ingestion, inhalation and through dermal contact. It summarizes symptoms of cyanide exposure as weakness, headaches, confusion, and nausea along with reduction in oxygen utilization; and symptoms of PCB exposure as chloracne, edema, jaundice, anorexia, and nausea, as well as liver damage. As with many documents of its kind, the conclusions and summary regarding site condition are vague and leave many questions. The 1987 Preliminary Assessment states that"as a cleanup has occurred at this site, it is very unlikely that any of the contaminants are present in high enough concentrations to cause the above effects if exposure were to occur."See December 30, 1987 Preliminary Assessment, emphasis added. A significant concern is whether DE Q's 1985 summary and similar summary-type findings and conclusions such as the 1987 Preliminary Assessment are based on appropriate current standards (residential high-density planned development, as opposed to industrial/non-residential standards). At the time of the 1985 cleanup, the likelihood that the remote site would be the subject of a planned development proposal was slim. In fact, the December 30, 1987 Preliminary Assessment concludes that no further action needs to be taken at the site, in part because "[t]he site is in a sparsely populated area ..."See December 30, 1987 Preliminary Assessment, Page 7, number 5, emphasis added. However, even while recommending that no further action be taken, the Preliminary Assessment questioned why heightened levels of total organic carbon were appearing in the upgradient well, and recommended investigation of other potential sources contributing to that abnormal well reading. Another concern is whether the prior site evaluation and conclusions are comprehensive and cover all of the land now proposed for planned development. Based on very limited testing of groundwater samples collected from two springs and a well around the disposal site, and limited Page 11 — SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS PC Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax:360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747_2\LJK/1/6/2016 testing of soil from the drum storage area and disposal pond bottom on two days immediately following the removal, DEQ concluded that the cleanup was complete. It did so despite an observation that contaminated sludge remained in the disposal pond containing lead above background levels. See January 18, 1985 Memo to File. The December 30, 1987 Preliminary Assessment document states that DEQ's 1985 conclusion regarding clean-up adequacy was based on the fact that radiation "had not migrated from the site," as test results on the site were higher than those performed in the springs below. See December 30, 1987 Preliminary Assessment, Page 5. A related concern is that outdated and incomplete sources and conclusions are cited as authoritative, and that on that basis more current testing builds off the inaccurate premise that the entire site has been restored to a condition suitable for a planned development. See, for example, , April 21, 2008 Memorandum prepared by Newton Consultants, Inc. for the Applicant. The first page of the memo quotes directly from the 1985 DEQ document that summarily concluded that cleanup of hazardous waste was completed to DEQ's satisfaction. Newton Consultants' evaluation consisted of analysis of a sample from one well that had recently been installed on the property (sample taken March 5, 2008), and analysis of a sample from a spring on the north side of the property (sample taken March 11, 2008). Based on this limited sampling, Newton Consultants concluded that"there is no reason to believe that individual drinking wells completed into the deep aquifer will not provide adequate domestic water that meets the drinking water standards ..." See April 21, 2008 Memorandum prepared by Newton Consultants, Inc., Page 4. This question regarding nature and extent of testing applies to the [Maul, Foster and Alongi— correspondence dated February 29, 2008 —anything more recent re: hazardous waste:] sampling results submitted by the Applicant. On November14, 2014, DEQ provided comments to The Daniels Group following review of the Remedial Investigation Work Plan for the East Parcel of the Lower Bridg e Site. It is unclear at this point whether the Applicant has completed the following as specified in the 2014 DEQ comments: Task 3 —Groundwater Sampling, including samples collected during different seasons to address varying seasonal groundwater flow(to enable a comparison with 2008 Newton Consulting Group groundwater sampling; Based on current information in the record, the terms of the work plan proposed in late 2014 have not been performed and DEQ has not issued a NFA. Once again it appears that the Applicant is "hopeful"that they can complete the work and is banking on a favorable outcome. The references above are examples of what appears to be an ongoing pattern of sporadic and limited steps taken by governmental and private entities in an attempt to determine true site conditions. The concern is that this spotty pattern falls far short of a comprehensive evaluation of Page 12 —SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS PC Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax.360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747_2\I,JK/1/6/2016 all land subject to the development proposal, with such evaluation based on present day hazardous waste standards applicable to lands slated for residential development. D. Applicant has not demonstrated that it can feasibly obtain legal authorization to secure a permanent water supply for the development. Through the 2008 BOCC plan amendment/zone change decision,the BOCC found that hazardous waste violations on the site were addressed only to the level of industrial use standards. The Board conditioned the 2008 approval such that the Applicant now has a burden to establish that the site's hazardous waste remediation has been completed to residential standards in all portions of property subject to planned development. See Hearings Officer 2015 Decision, Page 45. In addition, Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code contains required findings for the approval of a tentative plan for a proposed subdivision. Those findings include a requirement that the proposed subdivision will contribute to orderly development in the area. The Hearings Officer (at page 74 of the HO Decision) interpreted this to require a showing that the proposed planned development will have adequate facilities and services, including an adequate water supply. While the Applicant has provided evidence of physical groundwater availability in the area, it has not met its burden to show that the groundwater would be legally available to supply the various needs of the planned development, including possible long-term irrigation use in conjunction with dust control on the former DE mine site (Tax Lots 1501 and 1502). Even if groundwater is physically available at a particular property, it is rarely available for appropriation due to its direct hydraulic connection with the Deschutes River. The Deschutes River is over-appropriated, which means that hydraulically connect groundwater is unavailable for new appropriations without first obtaining a source of mitigation water, which may not be feasible to secure. Applicant may argue that it is not required to obtain mitigation water because it intends to use small volume domestic wells that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit. However, such groundwater use, while exempt from permitting requirements (if usage is below 15,000 gallons per day and used to irrigate no more than 'A acre of lawn and garden), is still subject to regulation and oversight under the prior appropriation doctrine. Moreover any use for dust control or irrigation will require a permanent water right. Given Applicant's close proximity to the Deschutes River in a state scenic waterway section and a federal wild and scenic river segment, it is reasonable to expect the Oregon Water Resources Department will approach water use in this location with a skeptical eye. Regardless, the Applicant has made no showing that it will be feasible to obtain legal authorization to withdraw water for use in the planned development. This is a potential fatal flaw to the ultimate development of this project, and the BOCC should require Applicant to meet its burden of proof on this issue. Page 13 —SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS PC Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax:360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747_2\LJK/1/6/2016 E. Applicant has not demonstrated that the development is consistent with the federal Endangered Species Act or with the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Pursuant to DCC 18.128.010(A), a conditional use listed in DCC Title 18 shall be permitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance; and the Comprehensive Plan. Emphasis added. Planned development is listed as a conditional use for the subject zone under DCC Title 18. DCC 18.60.030(E). Therefore, the proposed planned development project must comply with the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. See also DCC 18.128.210(B)(2), which requires a finding that any planned development authorized as a conditional use conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. This means that the planned development cannot be configured in a manner that maximizes density and financial gain by completely disregarding fundamental principles, goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to sections that pertain to federally designated wild and scenic rivers. Findings on this subject matter are required, as are findings that the proposal is in harmony with the surrounding area. In addition, a planned development proposed as a conditional use must comply with standards listed under DCC 18.128.210. Therefore, the present planned development application requires consideration of existing natural features, environmental considerations, the effect of the development on the rural character of the area, and the proposed ownership pattern. DCC 18.128.210. It does not appear that the Applicant made any effort to reduce the effect of the development on the area's rural character, to preserve existing natural features or to minimize environmental impacts. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Cha p ter 2, pertains to scenic and historic areas and open spaces. Section 2.1 of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is just one of many Comprehensive Plan sections that appear to apply to the current proposal. Section 2.1 cites Statewide Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality and the requirement ent fox compliance with Federal and State regulations regarding air, water and land quality. This Goal 6 (OAR 660- 01500000(6)) provides that all waste and process discharges from future development, when combined with discharges from existing developments shall not threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules and standards. Plans should buffer and separate those land uses which create or lead to conflicting requirements and impacts upon the air, water and land resources. Comprehensive Plan Section 2.4, Goal 5 Overview, provides that Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers, Oregon Scenic Waterways and natural areas on the Oregon State Register of Natural Heritage Resources list be inventoried at each periodic review. Once inventoried, the Goal requires protection measures. The Goal 5 purpose statement provides that the purpose of identifying Goal 5 related lands is to effectively manage Deschutes County's natural and cultural resources to meet the needs of today while retaining their value for future generations. Page 14— SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS PC Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax:360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747 2\LX/1/6/2016 The Wild and Scenic designation dictates that a case-by-case site plan review be completed for all designated waterways and lands within 660 feet from either side of designated rivers and streams as measured from the ordinary high water level. The Applicant must make a showing that the project as proposed is compatible with the goals and policies detailed in the Comprehensive Plan. DCC 18.128.010(A); DCC 18.128,210(B)(2). Comprehensive Plan provisions regarding the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the federal Endangered Species Act place a burden on the Applicant to make a showing that the project as proposed can feasibly comply with the requirements of both federal Acts, and place a burden on the County to make a finding of compliance with the same. CONCLUSION Based on the reasoning set forth above, Mr. Kibak requests that the BOCC either deny the planned development application or continue the hearing for a sufficient time to allow all parties and state and federal agencies sufficient time to respond to Applicant's argument and evidence, and to evaluate the legal significance of Applicant's December 31, 2015 Modification of Application. Such a continuance would also provide the BOCC with an adequate opportunity to conduct on-site evaluations and deliberations. This will ensure that the resulting decision is based on a thorough and well-founded record. The underlying Hearings Officer's decision was the culmination of significant time and resources invested by Deschutes County Planning staff and the Hearing Officer. The appeal process should be conducted in a manner that ensures that the Board is afforded a similar opportunity to invest the time and resources necessary to reach a sound decision. A reasonable alternative would be denial at this point, based on the simple fact that the Applicant has failed to meet its fundamental burden of proof. Dated this r �{. day of January, 2016. JORDA► RED Pc v B . Steven L. Shropshire, OSB # 944375 Attorneys for Kristian Kibak and 8801 NW 93rd Lane LLC Page Pa 15 --SUBMITTAL IN OPPOSITION JORDAN RAMIS PC. g Attorneys at Law 360 SW Bond St Ste 510 Bend OR 97702 Telephone:541-550-7900 Fax:360.567.3901 52712-73696 2058747 2\LJK/1/6/2016 • Lot 8, Eagle Rock Subdivision kW ,1.4•�>;'i.�! 'N i rwd tyi"s. f `! v*§ ''..A,''' fir ( sp¢,,...,.,.;..... , ,,,,,,,,,,,,..i, k, s w w { v ma a,. L T , lik " ^), ..MM. WM 7�D T .:2 �4 11'f „ * ,Np �X �; v ,d i. t P•�"t W t W? rM i b '�' '°¢ ,, 4 'W * ,.1 w M ^ak'�"d eN ,,.w PN R ! ',� n �It', y � � g yy m Po,N N.' ' " 0.., ro,...,..;),,, N' *^ N.4001-,,,," ✓ y. y k � k ,°. MiNI: ` q,...,'.' yw r �,r1? +• '+'y d .W ,� �9� a "a ' w 0::,44%..m! . n, i:1 w 4...,, 4. .. w ' . «,e " .. , y e. °_A " > .. eYy M hdm �� ," *f � • r 1 o- 71 : n y.y y ,�"p{ w A w n" ma r „Wa ''.\\*Ot1\:;\:'%\' 1 EXHIBIT A f' \\\ � \ ' ; ,:\ \��\'�,H� !rH;'Ih '; Pa e 1 of 1 - ._�_ 9 January 5,2016 Regarding Board of County Commissioners January 6,2016. Public Hearing File number 247-15-000521-A,247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP FROM: David and Rebecca Boyer,8619 NW 89th Place,Terrebonne,OR 97760 Rimrock Locations There is significant concern regarding the location of rimrock along the 19 lots proposed by the applicant.Rimrock is defined as any rim or slope along the Deschutes River, which exceeds a slope of 45 degrees. There is disagreement regarding rimrock status along the rim of the project. In the County staff report to the Hearing Officer(for Project File Numbers 247-15-000194-CU/195-TP, Conditional. Use Permit and Tentative Plan for a Planned Development), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife commented that all 19 lots include rimrock habitat. County staff noted that some of the proposed lots have no rimrock.The applicant's attorney has also stated during public hearings that some of the proposed lots have no rimrock. The location of rimrock is critical to determining the minimum setback of any future houses and structures developed as part of the project. Rimrock setback restrictions do not apply when there is no rimrock.The County needs to take special care in adopting river setbacks where slopes do not meet the definition of rimrock. Where rimrock can be located, the County should, at a minimum, require development to comply with the Rimrock Setback requirements of DCC 18.116.160. Much of the project is located across the river directly opposite of the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife expressed concerns in the County Staff Report that proposed development actions could result in the loss of habitats used by a variety of native mammals, birds and reptiles.In particular,they noted that rimrock and cliffs provide nesting sites for raptors, especially golden eagles,and roosting sites for bats. In addition,the Redmond Area Park and Recreation District also expressed concerns regarding the preservation of wildlife habitats and decreased user experience of those who use the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve for recreation because of the impact on the view shed. The Deschutes River in the area proposed for development is designated by the State as being a Class 3 Wild and Scenic Waterway.In addition, it is classified federally as Wild and Scenic. The development of any houses or structures that would be visible from the river would be incompatible with the State's wild and scenic river goals, and has the potential to cause the State to change the river's existing Class 3 designation to a lower classification. l have not been able yet to determine impacts on the federal Wild and Scenic designation. I walked along the rim of the project, and took photographs of rimrock angles and slopes. It appears to me that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is correct in stating that all of the proposed 19 lots have some rimrock in excess of 45 degrees. What follows are photographs documenting rimrock along all 19 lots.Exhibit A on the following page depicts the location of 12 photographs taken along the proposed lots.The photographs follow. These photographs help show how important is that a study be performed prior to any project approval showing the exact location of all slopes along the rim that are in excess of 45 degrees. For areas where slopes are found to be less than 45 degrees, the County should place specific conditions to restrict the development of structures that would otherwise be seen from the Deschutes River. s i ,...,. . .. 54-.4.4 EX.111131.1' A '6,.....11 :••,:, . KEY TO RIMROCK PHOTOGRAPHS •-• PPOTATT • .4'-•7iV 'MAC,'-S" ' • OPEN srAcs 1 ._. F- S9.,AC. -'- ''''-'-''''''• - . -.,-,,.. • ... ,.........,, •., ,...„,,. ._..- _ ... ._Nk 4 , .,,..••. .■41,f41111Ir ..-.• „. •• , ,. - .-tiygoscoa.F_Ir!.4„'ork- ,„. •„,,,,,,,,,i„;•!••;•„.„L:',.",BIN, " ••;,.t.:.i.,,,?..,i44..,,.,.,.,,,.,... ........:• \... ..... .. . •:.... ,,,,•,;:,,,..t.,1k,„•,;,•„,..:,..„..; ....,. . .. ••• . . , ,. • ..,-; .....,,,,•.....",.,..,....4,4,4,,,,,,,,,.„i.,,,„....,....,......,:,,i.,,..:......::•...,.,.,,:ci.4,,,:„.,.. • . — ..‘1.7.*- 1 7.1ww--..--,•:•.,„,„,„•,,,:,-,,,,,,, . .. .- , 4. 4)1 '.."..'..,"7.,4,,t,k.''''',,:..",',"4:-''''',•":"" . CO. . . . ,„. k.,..4,7,',.,,•,•,.'„••010:•1!"*""••••,•."!. '''''•'••••• ' /I ...'"'!.. :01,..;"':'•,•.;•:,•ft••'•••::;"•••....,• .■ ..•/ . , ..,oe.41101%,';'„,•!,;•:•:•••:„.. •';'''''„i'..-.•‘'.':••• .. .••••••••'.:'.„',:.i•„::•;[•••••""'•••••' ••••••••:'.'.'. C.,. 4 '"'•••..•••••.•11:.••,,a4,,,g•••:::!1.t.,,t,‘:,..„.:::,..,.!,:•!:•••,2...,:."...,,''' ,op.,w, ,. r.;;;,4•••.,,,,•.•,..A'",,i,;..,.,::.:.446,••••,OVIO ,,:$0"'"•?:5 •:•".•,•;!! • - ...... •••8.,..,•,•,•••, .,N,,, ,„...,..,..,,0„,,,,,,..::!!•4;:;:t:;....;,:,..,..•.-•,,,,..,,,, ..;.•• , ....,...„„„„, ...,...ii:"....„„.. , ,., „....r.!•:,:,:•,,,w!tr:•••...••.:•,... , ,,, ...„..,..,..,. . .....,.„,.. ....__.....:•,•;•,,,:.•:.:•..,1„•,.,.,..,.. - ,.... -- ...,. ••,,,,•;;:t:§:!:;;•!,p0,•••:::::,.. H,....:....,••,••••,,••••!. ,.o004.A•••,•:,....•-•••400:.,.. ,,,if ','••'...,,.'". '" ...,:::„•-•• ..00 '..: ,..,... '-.....,'."....,,".7.-,7!,'!".••';'W'',. • • . 3 ••„rt., 92•;?;..•••••„..:.,•....., ?r,v..,.0. ..,..:7.:.......,:•,::••• •.....:::,:;;,.. . , ... •.. . , 2 I)/ • •• • 1 - p,Au. -''":. ••••". ..,';•••1',...'••• •••::•••-•:‘,...,•••••.•,:•••.-.:•:7:•'.....,7•=' ; .,.. ..., .. • •5;•7]...;.t„.„..," ..7...-0,--,,,,,,,.,•,, .„ .• . ... Inv .. .-„•,2,,..!...•'-..:.,.„.;:•'••:„:..„:•"T•;:•‘•:,,„•;`,,„ '-'•,.' 4 I'‘'.•' "•'"''''r''''Of° • '• •- ..,... - • .... . .,.. ,. • . .. ... . . . . • ii LOWER BRXIGE ROA13 11-C • • ' . . .. ..._.•••••-" •• i ,.IL._iii144.1.T.:.___.Ln " ".„' " -"-7 :••::',..--: r '• • SCALE ■•imai , I. - . mrimm-aw-7= 4.. ' „..... a..AC.,,,,'..a...:'.1".....'":.::,1" .•••'••■ • •---",•-• .I.,,E,,, LDF •..-.S.•,.! 051111111. : ' '"*.'. '''i!I'I.'''•!... , fs/MU.:M= M 13 -. ,:ii,',•,■Y.::.• .' . -• - IF.MIMISINIMSSE,M .^ "‘•‘:I'',. •''•''''''''•'•" • - LI r g If SPACE 1 4,.".. . „...• . • ,,,,...,". ....., . . ,..„AC. ••■SZCL7-72 - '''''• ..• • : : ti ... . ........,-... -.'••:4-• r.-.?:11 • .,,., • • • • • 4...,-,... : • -••••._ ..••. - ..,,............ • ...::•„4,Ao•••,6.•!•:!7•:•!••••:••••••• '4,i.• ..••' • • . LOT, •.. -., ;SI.'". 1.5',, •••• k•!'.I.!•1!•SLI4,•!AI.,!..),,;........:.., k'••.,....•SIllOy,,',,,,,, . APPLICAVI07.44.77 4001..,C1.4.0.mc St - 007 CO I,177 7,17.SOT r noe ..A°',:',X'.■• .2. ...."......'.,'".'' •... VA-OJOS&SA SYS, '.•,,,,,-•••••-..!'•I.,\;.. ...-".".....-.. - .,...•'..1•••'.., .,..,.; .., ;"!.;!°:!!,•,!:!t••t:.,..,''44SI;T:',II44,•,•,.■••..... . 1.7.4.Stal SfsOOPTCLISIPANS LSO AssINSnxi LIP J.P.11,11,.......OsPIS fISTS.P. ,,,l'•\...'•'" '-` - ' - . t..S,''-'' .."I•1-7 '•••-••'V.;.%'6,:t•!::::,!..;;11040.;;!" IsssrOlISSOralhil •I• .■ tOSISKS7 SMOG m.a.....1.1./ea.. • mea...40.1AP 0, :., '''•at.!•,. , EMU/f AV P10007701700 ... .. .?„, , *,..,,,. • . . .7" .40.11) .,.,. nook LOIS 1./11,1r Ty.LOSS 2 CIAMSNAIiris TWOS ,•‘...:,!:.r.ti.„• '.": A' '.1 4'14•71Z., 8 OFSSSIMOS SUMS r4,07.,, ..,. "!' '• ' 19 •'■,t .11,6FIS- 1l50 50. .':',.1 .ONE/' '•.....,+'6 ell.," ''.;'•, ' ..76.9...A r.001 rISISS/114 ISO d snarl,a* :.4.a •••s4.11r!.,ts WOO • ..*.., ....•••-• . •.........,. ... . .4...1o....14...1n...44.0. .,..•••....:••• •• 11701.701,12000.11, VACJ■ma/W.I 07.....1.11A,1" ....................p.m. .." •- ' t••■ T/ ""... .0.1. ...As/Own , ‘i P4L.44- • A.1.0.1Crat IIESSIM III.L,sd MOILIOIS,moms/ f'''''X'A•I. .... - PROJECT AREA SUMMARY • •-.•• .. ..... " • . . , . ..... .......,. .. • Lou 1-19 ,s,-,.... '' • i •'•:. LEGEND -- . SWATS MUM SCSSOL...U.•a w 4.0,1A ! • ... IP LOPIIVISSOtli BOAS I,,..,r. • r". "'......c p.a.a 1...C1.1]— ISISIW EsssaYLIT ,. . WSIMISSIIIIOALI Enpre.0 o.1.14.44, ....... . i • • q•.:",,,.. `•" — ....„ RAUL IIILSW 1....,LED Amu Mel's/ TOTAL Yr,LUSO!!......,.....I ., \ LONER MEMO.., I IsIssRISIVITAIRS11.11.6-II.sum At•NM n.11.04.04. . , 0..0.m.....1.141400.1•77.m.,10...k oa...a.1.11......17 ,..1 ' ■.., LI,■11101.1.71,0011M• MIMS XISSUSACIS.....n SELISINC isonniS4j,lamas • • LID-010111031asisMsl-NYKSLY r- 1.00.11.11MOS WAS i, I ressanStald y spsSos.wss SaySISA,I. 1 _ - aerrorioNssot1.417..... •• tn.Onss-smssn r • mama ernow 00.4.....0.4.:.....I LISIOINS.10,01.1,..KIS — AS I5 — r4-70.0.0„ ' ivt.pupa osaa.0.4....'•..,,,,,i 4,,, prr........6 ....,....r..0■41.......... * Licrow.n. • .0.'%t, L) mtwommtarArx SIAM*.AIMS r4■-■•-"."-.4.4440..101...4.0440.■Ina...MS -- mama.nom... • ...S... — RSIIIPOs'IsAT AMA SIMIS InICISAPPS.ISASSOsi :i.'" .....-....,..,........,,...,,.,......,............... -,...,..............___ -\ / \ GO. y..-.•-•-,.1-.. Ia.P- r •,'" LYA10511no Parker,LLC • LOWER BRIDGE ROAD LW TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN • ••'•:Z:17,4i:'-i''''''''.-----..... /4*tsd.I41.,noss.sm y..1*SA,.1st ID':•'' ''''•.•.'""- . ".'"...- •'""'''''''. '• .:- A SUI3DMIsioN OF PARCELS 2 AND 3 OF MINOR PAfz77noN MP-80-96 ;....,„,..., PLANNED DEVELOPMENT • • . , ..............„ atra ','•••-•,'' \'''klIkOr• ,,,0,,/ .7,,_n, .......•HI140,114.P.A.IMA.I.Ar 1■::1 A I'll-t4It=i...■47.,;,..i....,..prZ.,...7.4 • - j s' 200' DAN001 48-TE.T.PIC-Min... s 2_ .. .......... ....... . .. . • •• • . ••••• Wri air,, w tOW '.s Picture 1: Photo taken from.Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve showing rim of Lot 1. MM' nr, Picture 2: Photo taken from Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve showing rims of Lots 1,2 and 3. 3 , " ',:"•:1•••••,;',1,; f '„'„„t;N t dr rr+'r M ;. ' .@p N..,! , W I yN lh , y, c;,, Picture 3: Photo taken from.Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve photo showing a close up of rims of Lots 3 and 4, i �°p"gym' h t` t. if, l ''' @y {„ { N f f '(%''7,.''', W' ,1 XI @I �1>i, is t iii ��''' 4" P ”" ( i ul u rI I r '1.,',”,, "m a ,,1i 5 }dl,i s t jr{'f �S t( .4:111t4.,1,'''.'",.' q!15�g 1' . 'Y pY p; Il 5 '' ai Itp�1!!!d', YN�n I l4' 14 ` ii l�I,, `tir. plj4 , "r " M4, Y x1y, a A ' 5 tt nd j''. e k i 4„r to I(Pd q , ^ "ry 'l �4� j I 5 f M Y i1 lid 5 ”( 4 7 di f 1 F d 11"II.( '� 9 p�i■t ' 4,` 1 f ,,i,,,,,,,,,,,,,„41 9 �,,;;">�n a pA '?p;,Irl 66 M !, 01„ S 5{1`, 0 d I�q.k'a 1,. ,r ly, ty`' 5 ; Picture 4: Photo taken from Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve photo showing an extended view of the rims of Lots 3 and 4. 4 jj • 6.«; ter' w5 • w + cM -s,r ,, w wf t. wr ew , r ;W , ,• Picture 5: Photo taken from Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve showing rim of Lot 5. Picture 6: Photo taken from Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve showing rim of Lot.6. 5 z 4 a 7 '"1 l0 t 7M/'',,::,;,' 7 c p . ....1"44',',;,',",„;,,,- M t L 1 • io p 7 , J N f t a r c aR: p y i P r y iA'''-'>.v1 y ; I�' ,, v r • ' ^:' l' g� " , µ JW{ - �-'4- I fu. 1 � 8$ i°P[ 64 s} „ a � ", ' � 0i Y 7 "n l 1 j { t l iv ; C? � 0, vr` g 0 4a ',...s.'" , ^ 4. . Picture 7: Rims of Lots 7 and 8. ■{i d i., 'a. p u ,,, 7, �� , 4/,7r f 7 of 8 I;MC 1', i',i1,1.V0 , , 1,11'�7i ,t,'„;idh^@��I', } 7, r 4 p tr°, „,,,o,„1 sir oi`' `i:, C ,�, 04/7 %/V 114, °a it� ;,�Wd� � i.ds„ ,.id a� 7, 7 6 N i r�M��l n'�t, w°, ire'„ �;, 1' B” 7 a k-, pi Picture 8: Looking upstream at rims of Lots 8, 9 and 10. 6 !Ir a�!Is '4,'.;,0,',' wk D " "', ` dP e i d4, ! p', yl ra I ,i M a, '9�'�T a yy„!�gl�'dfdrtc9�; a'�,48� �, I{,ii�r x9y!„ a g r xM N�„ "am w 7 4.° sv.:, '::: ''Wb' .." ,< aV P v p 4,,4,,,C47. '"C l{ ,y"'...� ,;„'.$ Mil G `, ., ,�'. "„'V..7 �'� M W 4M„Y b'; P _ . .."' 4, �'IF ,,F"1'^ Iry ,' I MN,„,L,,,,, Mw N"" md! -alit n y Picture 9: Rims of Lots 9 and 10. x's�d%d, ar+ '” x % r a° J s' b` M ' • q „ 404 * a M 1.:,4.'',.'''°', lf r i m' v ” > n, tt ''.%'4$4'''X'4'7,,,,,,4.4,:4 p p „4,4' 4 e i "y% M4 M w,^, ' M,a iA ,r i -1111 .4404s.4.440* ,dyr,,y". a.` 1N xM Picture 10: Rims of Lots 11, 12 and 13. 7 � (i< d a ,, N 1 cr' �. M " sN cr fM^., t „' r "{!,PiN6NfC d ;a d,'� „� Prl r fit"(� r" 4' ,f�y 4 x r ^�� l l„ss� JN„R q >6” :°#rep 1 r { ,�I '�" �I� t ,aa Mi N` r a I �f re , � �N �� a r by I`:.. , kir9 IU l f h 1 w^ a 7 {"w... Irr G , ',7n,• °;„. 1,1711,,,,&'""°,',p,,, r y��'P ur 4 F p r ; i 1 'r. to C tl j r } *r r bY'� gy D t 7 ,� d ,a M1<' wd9' L',1';''1,, "r,r ,r"rg aF�'��jJ N � "�:e p_,„ ,�° . � �N' 9 7 ff rr F 'gip° l'}�r "dlhi`r�,d9 ^,e kY{A it 4 ',, " `4;t4'''''';4h{' 1.'', • tl� "u7t hJ" P y u a + w' ,, E " ,.q�u,a . , I. M„yl a r F rr „ t,tr 5?' tI1 l: Rims of Tots 14 6J t 043 offI 'Picture [ "' ' y;0t "d: WI Y P 0," tltlt{ r IaNI ;tF1 ' t Ia'4 1 'f h tiy u" d^ ,s t'qr s ;#k a j'. X� r f " � *'fin d �a � » re ° dl* y@,p+rw 0,M. ,d`.. +"`"" w, h Picture 12. Rims of Lots 16, 17 and 19. 8 David Boyer Rebecca Boyer 8619 NW 891 Place Terrebonne,OR 97760 9 { January 5,2016 Regarding Board of County Commissioners January 6,2016 Public Hearing File number 247-15-000521-A,247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP FROM:David and Rebecca Boyer,8619 NW 89`"Place,Terrebonne,OR 97760 RE: Our Opposition to the Proposed Project My wife and I live in Lower Bridge Estates,a rural subdivision adjacent to and southeast of the PUD. We have a direct view of the entire project area,and would be subjected to potential heath and safety impacts,in addition to considerable dust,noise, light pollution,and increased traffic, if this project is approved. Attached are our comments regarding the significant impacts of the proposed project. These impacts are discussed in detail, and supply the basis for the project recommendations made at the end of these comments A comment summary sheet follows,which in turn is followed by more detailed comments on project impacts,which include: 1)The proposed residential subdivision has a high potential for serious adverse public heath and safety impacts, 2)The proposal is incompatible with the surrounding land uses that currently exist, 3)The proposed subdivision directly conflicts with federal Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway designations for this portion of the Deschutes River,and also conflicts with wildlife preservation zones adopted by the County. We request that you: 1. Deny the proposed plan, as the property is not suitable for concentrated residential use, or 2. If not denied,defer further action to move forward with the project until such time that the applicant can show compliance with all zoning ordinance and development criteria,as well as prove that all significant adverse impacts can and will be fully mitigated. 1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RECOMENDATIONS Summary of comments from David and Rebecca Boyer On Project 247-15-000521-A,247-15-000194-CU,247-1.5-000195-TP County approval of the PUD would permit development of 19 new homes on 2-acre lots.This would permanently change the rural character of the area,and result in a number of potentially significant adverse impacts, including: 1)The proposed residential subdivision has a high potential for serious adverse public heath and safety impacts, 2)The proposal is incompatible with the surrounding land uses that currently exist, 3)The proposed subdivision directly conflicts with scenic river and wildlife preservation zones adopted by both the State and County. Your County staff report expresses many of these same concerns. These potentially significant adverse impacts are discussed in detail in the attached comments,and supply the basis for the project recommendations that follow. PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations apply both to the proposed project site as well as to the former mined areas to the west and north: 1. Deny the proposed plan,as the property is not suitable for concentrated residential use. 2. If not denied,then further action to move forward with theproject should be deferred until such time that the applicant can show compliance with all zoning ordinance and development criteria,as well as prove that all significant adverse impacts can and will be fully mitigated. 3. Adopt all conditions of proval and impact mitigation measures recommended by staff in the staff repo The one exception would be the consideration of using Teater • ' connection with Lower Bridge Way. 'ra 110.0.._%Ve ; o.P. ,e e it-A.s�r P�o��e�L N o», 2'�1"t 5~D ca© �g� -�L��i q$ �T P 4. Require deep core drilling for water and soil samples as part of any required testing. All five tax lots comprising the former mine area,not just the project site,need to be tested. The pollution at the mine site has gone on for decades. Toxic chemical may be working their way down the soil substrate,or may have already impacted the deep groundwater aquifer resource that existing and future residents depend on for their drinking water. We need to know. 2 5. Require the applicant to replace topsoil and fully revegetate form er mined areas. The mine has and will continue to negatively impact adjacent residents and properties unless major steps are taken to ensure that potentially toxic DE dust storms are eliminated. 6. Future mining on the mine site to the west should be prohibited. As the project is directly downwind of the mine(as is much of the existing subdivision areas),future mining activities would likely seriously impact both the proposed project and current and future residents of Lower Bridge Estates and Eagle Rock Estates. The project proponents have used,as a rational for the project,the argument that further mining is not economical. Let's take them up on this. 7. The applicant needs to recalculate the configuration of the 19proposed lots,as it appears that land within floodplainareas has been included. Only developable land should be included in calculating the location and dimensions of the lots. 8. The applicant should be required to show an apparent need for 19 additional lots in an area that currently has a number of vacant residential lots. There are currently some 40 large-lot vacant residential parcels located within the adjacent Lower Bridge Estates subdivision. The desire to make profits from land use changes is not a need. 9. Require the applicant to fund an independent study that examines the impact of the project on the Deschutes River's Federal Wild and Scenic and State Scenic Waterway designations. 10. If_ the proposed project is approved,require full disclosure of the past history and use of formerly mined areas on all five parcels comprising the former mine area People who would consider building on the proposed lots need to be aware of the past toxic pollution on mine sites. Such disclosure should be prominent on any future real estate documents,and not hidden by fine print or at the end of documents. 12/28/2016 3 DETAILED COMMENTS AND RECOMENDATIONS The area surrounding the PUD is rural, mainly comprised of farms and ranches. The only non- agricultural uses are the Lower Bridge Estates, a rural large lot subdivision(currently,there are 27 homes),and the Eagle Rock Estates, with 8 homes. County approval of the PUD would permit development of 19 new homes on 2 acre lots. This would permanently change the rural character of the area,and result in a number of potentially significant adverse impacts,including: 1)The proposed residential subdivision has a high potential for serious adverse public heath and safety impacts, 2)The proposed project is incompatible with the surrounding land uses that currently exist, and 3)The proposed subdivision directly conflicts with federal wild and scenic river and State Scenic waterway designations for this portion of the Deschutes River,and also conflicts with and wildlife preservation zones adopted by the County. These impacts are discussed in more detail,as follows,and supply the basis for the project recommendations made at the end of this comment submission. It should be noted that County staff expressed many of these same concerns in the staff report. It is also telling that staff's recommendation is for the Hearings Officer to resolve a number of issues relating to the fact that the applicant has not yet demonstrated compliance with a number of zoning ordinance and important development criteria,or that compliance is currently in dispute. 1. Deny the proposed plan,as the property is not suitable for concentrated residential use, or 2. If not denied,we ask that the Board defer further action to move forward with the project until such time that the applicant can show compliance with all zoning ordinance and development criteria,as well as prove that all significant adverse impacts can and will be fully mitigated. 1.The Proposed Subdivision Has Significant Adverse Public Heath and Safety Impacts a)Potential contamination of groundwater with toxic substances from the former uncontrolled hazardous waste dump: Toxic waste was stored on the western portions of the mine property between 1977 and 1983. This waste included PCBs,Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs), Cyanide,Chromium and radioactive and solvent sludges. Taxies were found in approximately 500 barrels left on the surface. Lagoons were also used to evaporate toxic wastes. It is likely that cleanup operations in 1983 and 1984 failed to remove all toxins on site. 4 If toxins do remain on site,continued leaching over time could allow toxins to enter and contaminate groundwater. This could impact all existing residences currently relying upon groundwater,as well as allow toxins to enter into the Deschutes River. It is possible that toxins may have already leached into groundwater.If the aquifer were polluted due to the leaching of toxics, wells drilled into it to provide water for the 19 proposed homes would also become contaminated. There is much information to suggest toxics have migrated down towards the water table. Radioactive and solvent sludges,among other hazardous wastes,were reported dumped at this location from 1975 to 1983. This site was only permitted by the DEQ to receive liquid and solid industrial wastes "Environmentally hazardous" wastes were not permitted.At the time, "environmentally hazardous"was defined as radioactive materials and pesticides. Today the definition of"hazardous waste" is much broader and includes many of the wastes disposed of at this dump. In addition, it is documented that 5,600 gallons of liquid waste put into one of four lagoons on the mine site to the west in November or December 1975 was apparently gone by January 1976. It likely percolated into the ground,as at that time of the year the evaporation potential would have been low. Only a thin layer of solids is visible in the 1983 photos,suggesting that most of the 5,600 gallons was liquid and it likely went rapidly into the ground. The total quantity of liquid waste disposed of in these lagoons over time is unknown. The Solid Waste Permit was revoked in 1977 by DEQ because the disposal lagoons were constructed in an area of the property with very permeable and fractured soils. In a February 9, 1976 memo from Fred Lissner of the Oregon Department of Water Resources, it is stated "the slight amount of diatomite remaining will not provide an effective seal or filter to prevent ground water contamination.Liquids placed in the lagoons will readily leak into underlying gravels and eventually migrate either to the regional ground water body,or more likely to a perched ground water body which discharges into Deep Creek and/or the Deschutes River." During cleanup operations in 1983 and 1984,only one well and two springs were sampled to determine if contaminants had migrated to groundwater. The well was reportedly hydraulically upgradient of the dump. The only constituents that were analyzed for in these water samples were pH,Na,K,IDS,Alk,and TOC. Volatile organic compounds(VOCs), some of the most soluble and toxic contaminants that were dumped in the lagoons,were not even tested for in these water samples. Solvent sludges contain volatile organics.Only one composite soil sample consisting of 12 sub-samples was collected from one of the four lagoons at shallow depths after the cleanup was completed. With this minimal investigation into the extent of migration of the solvent sludges,DEQ issued a no further action determination for this site in 1986. In an October 27, 1983 memo,EPA commented on DEQ's cleanup plan: "There is no provision for the sampling and monitoring of the groundwater. This should be required if DEQ expects to give a release for the property.I would suggest that the release be conditional so DEQ could come back later if the problem has not been solved." The limited soil and groundwater sampling conducted in 1984 is insufficient to determine the nature and extent of subsurface contamination,and the associated risk to human health and the environment, from the industrial waste lagoons or spills from the hundreds of corroded drums that were left at this site over the years. Further and rigorous deep testing of soils and groundwater are needed to assess whether groundwater resources have been compromised, posing a hazard to 5 existing residents as well as future residents of the 19 proposed lots,all of which will be on private drinking water wells. b)Potential Exposure of adjacent residents to carcinogens and toxic particulates contained in diatomaceous earth: The majority of the subject property,and the mine site to the west, is a Diatomaceous Earth(DE)mine that has been used for the quarrying of DE for years. DE contains large quantities of crystalline silica and cristobalite,both carcinogens.Low level long term exposure of inhaled crystalline silica has been documented to cause breathing disorders,silicosis, fibrosis, lung cancer and death. The current mine owners have failed to prevent DE particulate dust from being blown from the mine area onto adjacent properties. Significant dust plumes are blown offsite onto near-by properties, including ours,on windy days. These dust storms adversely impact the health and safety of the surrounding community. Revegetation is necessary to prevent wind dispersal of DE from the mine property. Soil replacement and continued irrigation is required for revegetation efforts to be successful. While water from a pivot circle irrigated a small portion of the property in the recent past,the vast majority of the mine site to the west is not irrigated.hi addition, all of the topsoil in the mine area has been removed,and sold for profit rather than being used to reclaim the mine. This lack of topsoil,along with minimal or no irrigation,virtually ensures the failure of any revegetation effort. People who build on the 19 proposed lots will be exposed frequently to what could be dangerous levels of DE dust, given that these lots are directly downwind from the mine. In addition, development of the 19 lots may result in grading activities that could release additional large amounts of fine silica dust into the atmosphere. If this were to occur,adjacent residents would be exposed to even higher levels of a dangerous carcinogen than they are currently being exposed to. c)Septic systems and water quality: The subject property is located on diatomaceous earth. This material is mined for its multiple porous uses. The development of 19 septic systems in this extremely porous and fractured material next to the Deschutes River has the potential to result in contaminants finding their way both into the underlying aquifer and into the river,resulting in violations of both County and State water quality regulations. d)Increase in traffic along Lower Bridge Road: Lower Bridge Road is currently a narrow and winding two-lane road that serves as the major route connecting Highway 97 near Terrebonne with Highway 20 near Sisters. The addition of automobile traffic from 19 additional homes could place a significant burden on Lower Bridge Road and increase the potential for accidents. The additional traffic burden could also result in the need for Deschutes County to widen Lower Bridge Way. Lower Bridge Way is already unsafe in a number of respects, as reflected by a history of serious accidents.Adding traffic from more residences could compound current problems and create an additional burden on the road. The Lower Bridge area is an agricultural hub and agricultural traffic would not mix well with new intensive residential development. Lower Bridge Way is used as a farm-to-market road frequented by large hay trucks and other farm equipment. Wide equipment driving at slow speeds is the norm. As mentioned in the staff report to the Hearing Officer for Project File Numbers 247-15-000194- CU/195-TP,Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Plan for a Planned Development,Planning and Road Department staff visited the project site and are concerned about the sight visibility from the 6 proposed access to both the north and south of Lower Bridge Way.There are slight vertical curves and vegetation in both directions and it appears the access may not meet sight distance requirements. The staff report suggests that the applicant may want to consider whether to replace the proposed direct access to Lower Bridge Way with a direct access onto Teater Avenue at the south edge of the property,thus funneling site traffic to the existing Lower Bridge Way-Teater Avenue intersection. Teater is also the entrance to the Lower Bridge Estates subdivision. While 27 lots in Lower Bridge Estates are currently built on,more than 40 are vacant and could be built on in the future resulting in traffic from nearly 70 lots utilizing Teater. Teater also has line-of-sight visibility issues, and may not have any benefit over the proposed project's connection with Lower Bridge Way.Adding traffic from 19 additional homes to Teater will only make a bad visibility situation even worse. In addition,the severe slope on the lower part of Teater levels out just about where the project access would connect to it.During winter months, snow and ice often make this slope extremely hazardous unless County road crews deposit cinders on it. While they are usually on top of this situation,there have been times when they are unable to put cinders on Teater for a day or so following a snowstorm. On one of these occasions,I lost control of my vehicle while traveling down Teater and slide quit a ways down before I ran off the road just about where the project connection would be placed. In such a situation,any vehicles entering Teater from the project would be at extreme risk. The contribution of project traffic to Lower Bridge Way traffic should be calculated,as traffic at the Lower Bridge Way-Highway 97 and Lower Bridge Way-NW 4rI Street(entrance to Crooked River Ranch)has increased dramatically over the last few years. The existing stop signs at these two intersections may be inadequate,resulting in the need to examine whether traffic signals are warranted. If this is the case,the applicant needs to assume their fair share of the costs. e)Danger of ground collapse: Diatomaceous earth can collapse following periods of heavy rainfall. This being the case, I am concerned that if the proposed subdivision were approved,that people and property could be exposed to the potential of ground collapse. 2. The Proposed Subdivision is Incompatible With Existing Surrounding Uses a)Concentrated residential development out of character with area. Much of the land in the vicinity of the subject property is zoned for Exclusive Farm Use(EFU)with 80-acre minimum parcel sizes,and consists of property actively in agricultural use. Two large-lot residential subdivisions exist adjacent to and across the river from the proposed project.These include Lower Bridge Estates,located southeast of the project,and Eagle Rock Estates. Parcel sizes in Lower Bridge Estates average 10 acres,while parcel sizes in Eagle Rock Estates are at least 20 acres. The concentrated PUD development of 19 residential lots each on 2 acre lots is completely out of character with the surrounding agricultural and rural residential land uses. Houses will be built much close together,and the established character of existing residential development, individual homes on generously sized lots with plenty of open space between them,will be substantially and negatively impacted. This could also negatively impact the property value of existing properties. 7 The proposed residential density is inconsistent with rural densities,and is closer to that of a suburban development. There is no apparent need for such a development.As previously noted, there are currently some 40 large-lot vacant residential parcels located within the adjacent Lower Bridge Estates subdivision. The applicant has failed to prove the need for an additional 19 lots in this area. The desire to make profits from land use changes is not a need. b)Project will expose existing properties to significant new light pollution and glare. A number of properties,including mine own,overlook the project site. Existing light sources are currently minimal and are diffuse over a wide area. Clustering 19 residences together on 2 acre lots will consolidates new sources of light pollution, creating new sources of light pollution for existing residents. Directing new lighting downward per existing County lighting requirements will not eliminate this impact. c)Project is incompatible with the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve. The concentrated residential uses are proposed to be located directly across the river from the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve. Redmond Area Park and Recreation District(RAPRD)owns the Preserve,a 26 acre wildlife preserve off of Lower Bridge Road. The Preserve is sensitive nesting habitat for a variety of bird species,and is also is a migratory path for other animals as well. In the Staff report,RAPRD had concerns regarding the preservation of wildlife habitats and decreased user experience of those who use the wildlife preserve for recreation because of the impact on the view shed. Most of the 19 lots include rimrock habitat.Residential development at the edge of rims alters vegetation and disturbs nesting birds. Development of these lots could result in the loss of habitats used by a variety of native mammals,birds and reptiles. Unless the County implements stringent setback standards to protect these sensitive species, many may be adversely impacted. Some of the proposed lots do not have rimrock,which the County defines as any ledge, outcropping or top or overlying stratum of rock which forms a face in excess of 45 degrees, and which creates or is within the canyon of the Deschutes River. The County's rimrock setbacks would not apply in these cases,resulting in the possibility that structures or residential landscaping could be placed in sensitive habitat areas. 3.The Proposed Subdivision is Incompatible with Both State"State Scenic Waterway"and Federal"Wild and Scenic"Designations that Currently Apply to this Stretch of River. The Deschutes River in the area proposed for development is designated by the State as a"State Scenic Waterway". Its subclassification is"Scenic River Area",the most restrictive of classifications under the Oregon Scenic Waterways program.A scenic waterway includes the river and its shoreline,and all land banks and tributaries within one quarter mile of the river. The major goal of the program is to protect the natural and scenic diversity of waterways by encouraging new development to blend in with the natural environment. The primary condition for new structures and developments is that they be completely screened from view from the river. The development of 19 homes adjacent to the river would be incompatible with the State's wild and scenic river goals if structures are not screened from the river view by trees,and has the potential to cause the State to downgrade the river's existing designation 8 to a lower classification. It is hard to believe that trees can be successfully grown on the bare, soilless DE that currently constitutes the rim over the river along the proposed project. In addition,this portion of the river is also classified federally as a"Wild and Scenic River". National Wild and Scenic Rivers are federally protected areas designated by Congress or by the Secretary of the Interior under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act(Act). The National Park Service(NPS) is responsible for managing rivers throughout the United States. The Act requires the NPS to protect and enhance a designated river's free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. I did not see any discussion in the staff report regarding the potential impacts of the development on these federal and state river designations. The federal and state agencies responsible for these designations should be notified of the proposed project,and their comments taken into account. County Staff and Existing Residents Living Near the Mine Properties Both Share Significant Concerns In the staff report to the Hearing Officer for Project File Numbers 247-15-000194-CU/195-TP, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Plan for a Planned Development, staff concerns over potential project impacts appear to coincide with those of area residents. I would like to summarize what I think are the most significant issues and concerns raised by the staff report. The staff report states that residential use of this property would be unsuitable if the site presented significant hazards from the former mining and/or industrial use of the property. Staff believes these hazards could include surface contamination, sub-surface contamination, groundwater contamination,and uncontrolled dust from surfaces with limited vegetation or surfaces disturbed by future actions. Staff believes that the applicant must demonstrate,prior to any approval,that the project site is suitable for residential development. Specific staff concerns relate to: Surface Contamination: Staff is concerned that surface contamination may be detected in the future,and note that surface contamination of the site could include presently exposed contaminated surfaces,and recommends the Hearings Officer request additional information to determine that the site has been adequately investigated for surface contamination. Staff also expressed concern that surface contamination may be detected in the future and believe the site is not suitable unless this risk can be completely discounted,or a plan with clear lines of responsibility and funding source to deal with any future detection of contamination is required. Staff noted that there needs to be a plan in place prior to project approval which addresses how foreseeable future hazards will be resolved. This being the case, their recommendation is for the Hearings Officer to require that a funded,binding plan for foreseeable future hazards be in place prior to any approval of this application. A finding that the site is suitable for residential use is not supported where plans for foreseeable hazards are not in place. The key elements of that plan should be included as conditions of any approval of this application. The staff report lists the information that should be included in these conditions. Subsurface Contamination: Staff is concerned that sub-surface contamination may be detected in the future,and note that potential hazards could come from exposure to contaminated soils, exposure of solid waste during residential development,or migration of contamination to 9 groundwater. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer request additional information to determine that the site has been adequately investigated for sub-surface contamination. Staff believes the site is not suitable unless this risk can be completely discounted,or if a plan with clear lines of responsibility and funding source is required to deal with any future detection of contamination. They recommend that the Hearings Officer require that a funded, binding plan for foreseeable future hazards be required prior to any approval of this application. Groundwater Contamination: Staff is concerned that groundwater contamination may be detected in the future. They note that groundwater contamination of the site could include both presently contaminated groundwater reaching residential wells,or the migration of contaminated soil to groundwater. Contamination sources may be on the subject property,or the larger mine site to the west.New wells can change the flow rate and direction of flow of groundwater. Staff believes the site is not suitable unless this risk can be completely discounted,or a plan with clear lines of responsibility and funding source is required to deal with any future detection of contamination. They recommend that the Hearings Officer request additional information to determine whether the site has been adequately investigated for groundwater contamination. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer require that a funded,binding plan for foreseeable future hazards be in place prior to any approval of this application. Diatomite Dust Dispersal: Dust, regardless of contamination,can represent a significant respiratory hazard. Staff notes that the subject property and adjacent larger mining site to the west (Tax Lots 1501 and the SM zoned portions of 1502)has and continues to be a significant generator of dust. They also note that the diatomaceous earth prevalent on the subject property and adjacent SM zoned lands to the west has significant potential for the generation of dust, and that dust from processed diatomaceous earth,which may be present on the site,is of particular concern. , The Oregon Department of Human Services,Environmental Health Assessment Program(EHAP) has also found that airborne dust from any source can cause short-term respiratory irritation,but more information is needed to evaluate possible long-teen effects at this site. EHAP considers inhalation of airborne dust emanating from this site to be an indeterminate health hazard. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)stated that the site has currently only been evaluated with respect to environmental safety for its current use as a mine and industrial property.A change from industrial to residential use would require a re-evaluation of the site for residential use. The re-evaluation of the site,applicable exposure routes,and pathways may result in. some scenarios requiring deed restrictions,active cleanup and/or monitoring. Following a cleanup of any identified environmental contamination,DEQ could issue a"No Further Action Letter" (NFA) for residential use. Staff indicated that the site is not suitable for residential development unless the respiratory hazard from dust can be completely discounted,or a plan with clear lines of responsibility and a funding source is required to control any future generation of significant dust. Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer request additional information to determine whether dust can be adequately controlled at the site during construction and after. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer require that a funded,binding plan for this foreseeable future hazard be in place prior to any approval of this application. 10 Staff is also concerned about dust from future mining use of the adjacent mining site to the west. Dust from this site would be delivered to the proposed PUD by the prevailing winds. This area is still zoned surface mining and staff assumed the site can and will be mined until such use is prohibited on the property. Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer require that a funded, binding plan for this foreseeable future hazard be in place prior to any approval of this application. Staff believes the Hearings Officer would need to be able to answer a number of questions prior to any finding that the new residential use would be suitable.These questions are listed in the staff report. Wildlife Impacts The staff report also discusses potentially significant impacts on wildlife. As noted earlier,the Redmond Area Park and Recreation District(RAPRD)has concerns regarding the preservation of wildlife habitats and decreased user experience of those who use the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve for recreation because of the impact on the view shed. In addition,the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW)is concerned with potential impacts to the rimrock and cliffs adjacent to the Deschutes River. All nineteen lots include rimrock habitat.According to the their 2006 Oregon Conservation Strategy,residential development at the edge of rims alters vegetation and disturbs nesting birds. Also,per ODFW's Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation policy, ODPW is concerned that these development actions could result in the loss of habitats used by a variety of native mammals,birds and reptiles. In particular,rimrock and cliffs provide nesting sites for raptors,especially golden eagles,and roosting sites for bats. ODFW urges the County to implement stringent setback standards to protect these sensitive species. County planning Staff also notes that changes in the natural grade of land,or the alteration,removal or destruction of natural vegetation in the riparian habitat of the Deschutes River would likely result in erosion and increased sediment delivery to the Deschutes River. Staff recommends as a condition of any approval that changes in the natural grade of land be prohibited,and that the alteration,removal or destruction of natural vegetation,or placement of new structures below the existing terrace level be prohibited. Staff noted that the "terrace level"varies somewhat across the site. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer request an exhibit identifying the break in topography between the generally level terrace and the steep slope down to the Deschutes River. Staff also noted that some of the proposed lots have no rimrock: i.e. no rock face in excess of 45 degrees.Rimrock setback restrictions do not apply when there is no rimrock. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer request an exhibit showing all rock faces in excess of 45 degrees on the subject property to understand the distribution of these rock outcroppings. The properties are within the Landscape Management Combining Zone(LM), but the applicant has not yet applied for LM site plan approval for future dwellings in this application. Staff need to review the project against LM criteria to determine whether it is feasible to obtain LM site plan approval for these future dwellings. Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer require LM site plan approval for future dwellings or additions to dwellings as a condition of any approval of this application. Staff also expressed concerns that structures that are exempt from Landscape Management review, such as structures which do not require building permits,may be placed immediately adjacent to rimrock or even projecting partially over rimrock. Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the provisions of the LM apply to those structures that are currently exempt from Landscape Management review,or if this finding is not made, to prohibit such development. Staff is also concerned that development of some of the proposed lots will only be possible under a rimrock setback exception. Staff believes that the combination of the canyon topography and rimrock setbacks may impose greater setbacks on any residential development and sewage disposal systems, and that new lots should not be created by a subdivision that will require a rimrock exception to develop when alternative layouts of the subdivision are possible. PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny the proposed plan,as the property is not suitable for concentrated residential use. 2. If not denied,then further action to move forward with the project should be deferred until such time that the applicant can show compliance with all zoning ordinance and development criteria,as well as prove that all significant adverse impacts can and will be fully mitigated. 3. Adopt all conditions of pproval and impact mitigation measures recommended by staff in the staff re s ii, The one exception would be the consideration of using Teater Avenue as the proj- ' onnection with Lower Bridge Way, for the reasons previously T� -ir r�r� 04gtesc �ar`P trbe a Zt}/ .. 00n lgq•-cUi C 4. Require deep core drilling for water and soil samples as part of any required testing. All five tax lots comprising the former mine area,not just the project site,need to be tested. The pollution at the mine site has gone on for decades. Toxic chemicals may be working their way down the soil substrate, or may have already impacted the deep groundwater aquifer resource that existing and future residents depend on for their drinking water. We need to know. 5. Require the applicant to replace tapso i1and fully revegetate all former mined areas. The mine has and will continue to negatively impact adjacent residents and properties unless major steps are taken to ensure that potentially toxic DE dust storms are eliminated. 6. Future mining on the mine site to the west should be prohibited.As the project is directly downwind of the mine(as is much of the existing subdivision areas), future mining activities would likely seriously impact both the proposed project and current and future residents of Lower Bridge Estates and Eagle Rock Estates.The project proponents have used,as a rational for the project,the argument that further mining is not economical.Let's take them up on this. 12 7. The applicant needs to recalculate the configuration of the 19 proposed lots,as it appears that land within floodplain areas has been included. Only developable land should be included in calculating the location and dimensions of the lots. 8. The applicant should be required to show an apparent need for 19 additional lots in an area that currently has a number of vacant residential lots. As previously noted,there are currently some 40 large-lot vacant residential parcels located within the adjacent Lower Bridge Estates subdivision, so there is no apparent need for the project The desire to make profits from land use changes is not a need. 9. Require the applicant to fund an independent study that examines the impact of the project on the Middle Deschutes River's Federal Wild and Scenic and State Scenic Waterway designations. 10. If the project is approved,require full disclosure of the past history and use of formerly mined areas on all five parcels comprising the former mine area.People who would consider building on the proposed lots need to be aware of the past toxic pollution on the mine sites. Such disclosure should be prominent on any future real estate documents. David Boyer --b-e/tAkic 77‘10-(47 Rebecca Boyer 8619 NW 89th Place Terrebonne,OR 97760 13 January 6, 2016 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners as Appeal Hearings Body: Testimony to be submitted into the record on Appeal of Hearings Officer's denial of 247- 15-000194-CU/195-TP Lower Bridge Road LLC 1. I concur with the most recent Hearings Officer's findings which are adequate. 2. The recently submitted December 18, 2015 Wallace report does not identify the spring that exists on taxlot 1501. This spring is shown on the Century West drawings from the 1970's for the waste site. The Wallace report does not identify the proximity of the site to the Deschutes River. The Wallace Report identifies that revegetation includes cheat grass. Cheat grass is an invasive weed that is part of the weed eradication program in Deschutes County. Cheat grass should not count toward revegetation or reclamation. Cheat grass is a fire hazard. 3. Deschutes County is celebrating 100 years so it is appropriate to identify that The Deschutes County Goal 5 historic resource Lynch & Roberts sign is located on taxlot 1505 of the proposed PUD. Please identify this heritage site correctly and enforce preservation standards for this historic resource. 4. I am wondering what the pedestrian route is from the proposed PUD lots on the east side of lower bridge way to the open space on the west side of lower bridge way. Will pedestrians be walking on lower bridge way with it's 55 mph vehicle speed limit, walking eastbound from the PUD's driveway, then crossing lower bridge road onto the west side onto the unreclaimed mine in the Open Space Tract F to access Open Space Tract E where there are views of the Deschutes River overlooking the park? If so, then it seems that Lower Bridge Way needs both pedestrian and bicycle improvements such as bike ways or bike lanes and also a safe pedestrian pathway which is not identified in these plans. The County identifies it will work with applicant to reduce the Dolan test on lower bridge way, but I don't understand how there is safety for the PUD residents traveling by foot or by bike to their own open space on the west of lower bridge way. The applicant should fund and install the needed bicycle and pedestrian improvements so the future residents of this PUD can access their own open space. 5. Lastly, Reclamation of the mine has not been done to even to the agreed to standards for industrial use. Before you provide any approval of this PUD, shouldn't the BOCC have in hand a DEQ certificate stating that dust now longer occurs, and a certificate from DOGAMI that all 550 acres of the mine have been reclaimed to residential standards? 7. Here is a DEQ matrix to give you a feel for residential risk based factors : notice that residential standards require much more stringent cleanup. 8. First, please help this property owner clean up the entire mining site to residential standards by adding this entire mining site to your list of brownfields so it could be eligible for federal funds. 9. Next, get In writing to BOCC DEQ's and DOGAMI's certificate of clean up satisfaction to residential standards. 9. Then if the property owner modifies their application to remove EFU zoned lands which will involve reconfiguring their application you can then process their application. Thanks for considering my views. As has been written in the file, Deschtues County regulates Air Quality and Deschutes County needs to create a clean matrix for how this will occur for our community's public health. Nunzie Gould N l . - y au 19845 JW Brown Rd Bend, OR 97701 541-420-3325 attachments: 4 include: Century West page 4, Wallace Report, taxlot overview map, Open Space Exhibit A page 1 • 1 . i I a. d 4 E .0 i 0 150 - , i `.. a ge9 , 010 i 1 i y gli hip I 1 i i * i ' 11„,,11.1i1 tg 1 0 ' i 1V;r.vrp.-1 .I a.g .... ? . .1•'iitot ; 1 II 1 R:Hill!:11" 0 1 r ium I 40 i, i i 1 i ad 1 k a * 0 i :„; • i ,, , V 4 a t a I 11 ! ' 0' J : M:=All S 1 . Pi .4.v . 1 8 I I I I ,, 1! ! ,.., .. t lr p 1 u a 1 siftl' g 0 :g u; 1.1 I I I 1 I 1 i 111111g: •■• ! :. .1 f 1 ,- ... ••4-c. g 114 t •,,),i . U v ... . i t -a t g ma - 's N',...4\;11-11 ,4e■.,:;: '06 t.:,:.4::.:,-..;,' 1 % M ..„,;..... , u•••-=-4-,.... ,• „,,,, ip,,ak:. 4, -,, ,•\-0",l's_c . -. I I i - gl 94 0 II';, 1., „• --lbir Z.; ' 1-- 11-.----- ,--• ; t„-;,----'' NoL,N. q ---- .-\ J„,.,4 ,1t:,-ii, L ‘4.•' - i . - ',.._11-;,:„.. tir 4 yr v -==f- 1/4 r - ■ 1 - • , , 1 ,,,-., ■ -;--:„... ...,' , . Pi I 9 , -7 .-- ..- ''".: . ) i; ,•,,_ ,..- -__ --_,-- . wel, t , 1 ; MP' -1_-, ---- ‘, l ‘ 1 i. 4 '..". \ 6;i1VW- Virg.1-111, ■ -17'..).„ .. , — ,L, k,,, -, .\ ...... ... 06. •...) t , , .4,1c. a , , 1 - 1. t\ 1 s , , ‘• t, ' 1 ' - \ . ., —. i _ ob i \ s- , ..) •.., . t ..„. , i, ;., . .. , , __ _ •,.N. , 1 -- * , ,, _ ; •k__. 's< : • I s - 1 \', . , a , 0 glib 1 , .. , , \ • _ _.._ ---- 7 , waLlaceGRouP December 18, 2015 Ms. Tia Lewis Schwabe,Williamson &Wyatt 360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 Bend, OR 97702 Subject: Compliance Summary Aggregate Mine Reclamation 18-Acre Site SP-85-23 Lower Bridge Road Deschutes County, Oregon Project No. 10446 (7) Dear Ms. Lewis: Wallace Group geologic staff visited the above-referenced, former aggregate surface mine site on December 7, 2015, to observe current conditions and assess the site's reclamation status. A Site Map illustrating the approximate 18-acre reclamation site (SP-85-23) is included for reference on Figure 1. The Amended Reclamation Plan for SP-85-23 provided the basis for this assessment, in accordance with OAR 632-030- 0025. This compliance summary is also intended to meet Condition 12 set forth in the Decision of Deschutes County Hearings Officer (Ms. Karen Green), dated December 12, 2011. Backslround Site SP-85-23 is contiguous to, and located within,the boundary of an approximate 410- acre, former diatomaceous earth (DE) surface mine (SM Site 461). Reclamation work on SM Site 461 was previously completed to the satisfaction of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), and the file is closed. Reclamation work was reportedly completed on Site SP-85-23 in 2012, by the property owners (Norman Wiegand, et. al.) as referenced in the December 12, 2011 Hearings Officer Decision. The Amended Reclamation Plan for Site SP-85-23 documented existing site conditions and zoning as of October 2011 and provided the framework for reclamation work performed by the owners. The reclamation requirements, by Plan number, are included below along with Wallace Group input, based on our December 7, 2015 observations. -INS/G151_068 1 December 18,2015 62915 NE 181'‘'St,Ste 1,Bend,OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 1 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com • waltaceGRoup 1. Pre-Mine Conditions a) Current Land-Use and Zoning: Surface Mining (SM) b) Average topsoil depth: < 6-inches c) Type and density of vegetation: Sagebrush, cheat grass and bitterbrush; sparse to moderately dense high desert ground cover. d) No springs, seeps, intermittent or perennial streams are on or near the site. e) A wetland delineation has not been completed and is not required for the site. f) A landslide investigation has not been completed and is not required for the site. 2. Post-Mining Land Use a) Current Land-Use and Zoning: Surface Mining (SM) subject to an Intent to Rezone to RR-10. 3. Reclamation Timing a) Reclamation will begin over 20 years following completion of mining. 4. Operating Plan a) Not applicable. 5. Water Resource Protection a) Not applicable. 6. Groundwater Information a) Mining reportedly did not exceed 15 feet below original ground surface. b) Groundwater depth: 54 feet below ground surface. c) Depth to groundwater is based upon 2008 Oregon Water Resource Department Well Log Records for an on-site well. d) Flow direction is inferred to be to the north/northeast based upon a joint Deschutes Basin Groundwater Study conducted by the Oregon Water Resources Department and the U.S. Geologic Survey (2001). 7. Visual and Noise Screening a) Not applicable. 8. Equipment and Structures Removed a) Upon final reclamation, all residual mining equipment, storage tanks, metallic and wood debris will be removed from the site. Based upon our site observations on December 7, 2015, all equipment, tanks and debris appear to have been removed from the site during reclamation activities. Surface conditions are illustrated on Figures 2a-2d. TWG151.068 2 December 18,2015 62915 NE 18h St,Ste 1.Bend,OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 w liecegroup-irtc.com WatLaceGRoup 9. Reclamation Techniques a) Any over-sized rock materials will remain on-site and will be placed in locations that replicate original pre-mining surface conditions. We did not observe any oversize boulders in on the 18-acre reclamation site during our December 7, 2015 site visit. b) The average depth of soil replaced in the reclamation area will be 6-inches. Site observations on December 7, 2015 indicate the thickness of surface fill and aggregate materials ranges from approximately 6 to 8-inches in reclaimed areas (Figure 2b). c) No additional materials will be utilized as a soil substitute to complete the re- vegetation. d) There do not appear to have been any waste products such as tailings, crusher rejects, etc. generated during mining. There were several small stockpiles of residual aggregate located in the central portion of the site. The stockpiles and adjacent area to west exhibit sparse to moderate vegetative cover consisting of sagebrush, range grasses and weeds (Figures 2c &2d). e) Processing and stockpile areas were reclaimed by removing non-native metallic and wood debris from this site prior to regarding and contouring work (Figure 2a). Areas where vegetation had been naturally re-established were not disturbed to preserve existing vegetation and minimize the remobilization of fine- grained soil particles and resulting dust hazard. Additional re-vegetation work is not proposed. The reclamation work appears to have been completed in accordance with the Plan based upon our December 7, 2015 site observations. 10.Re-vegetation Techniques a) Species to be seeded/planted by type and amount. Native, high desert, range- type vegetation (sagebrush, cheat grass and bitterbrush) has been naturally re- established in sparse to moderate density over portions of the site. Reclamation grading work will not disturb those areas that have been re-vegetated. Natural re-vegetative processes will continue and additional re-vegetation activities are not proposed. Areas of the site where re-vegetation has occurred were not disturbed during on-site reclamation work. b) Reclamation earthwork was reportedly conducted during wet, winter months to minimize dust generation. c) Fertilizers, lime and mulch were not used during reclamation. 11.Reclamation Procedures- Post-Mine Drainage Control & Reconstruction a) Stream channel and/or bank stabilization and rehabilitation were not required at the site. b) Surface water run-off and drainage-induced erosion control where not required on the site. This is due to the permeable nature of native surface soils. Any TWG15L068 3 December 18,2015 62915 NE 18" St,Ste 1,Bend,OR 97701 P i 541.382.4707 f i 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com wallaceGR uP overland flow that occurs would be transported to the north and east on to adjacent SM-zoned property (owned by the same landowner). We did not observe evidence of surface runoff from the site during our December 7, 2015 site visit. 12.Reclamation Procedures—Impoundments & Pond Decommissioning a) Not applicable. b) Surface water run-off and drainage-induced erosion control where no required on the site. This is due to the permeable nature of native surface soils. Any overland flow that occurs would be transported to the north and east on to adjacent SM-zoned property (owned by the same landowner). We did not observe evidence of surface runoff from the site during our December 7, 2015 site visit. 13.Reclamation Procedures--Land Shaping a) What will be the steepest above-water excavated slopes after mining: 1.5 : 1 b) What will be done to ensure stability of excavated slopes? Reclamation grading does not appear to have resulted in slopes exceeding 1.5 : 1 (H : V). Anticipated post-reclamation land-use is anticipated to include Open Space Conservation (OSP) designation, which will preclude development in areas with potential for destabilization of excavated slopes. c) Final slopes will not exceed 2 : 1. Post-reclamation site access is limited and vegetated areas did not appear to be disturbed. d) Grading and backfill activities appear consistent with the surrounding topography. 14. Post-Mining Water Impoundments a) Not applicable. Summary of Findings The reclamation activities at the subject site appear to meet the conditions and requirements set forth in the Amended Reclamation Plan, dated October 21, 2011. All residual mining equipment, storage tanks, and metallic/wood debris have been removed from the site. In addition, reclamation grading activities have spread the majority of the residual aggregate stockpiles and blended them with native soils to establish final reclamation grades and contours. The grading activities do not appear to have disturbed pre-existing vegetation. We noted that some areas of the site within former access road and stockpile areas were planted with range grass, and there appears to be limited growth in these areas. The limited plant growth is attributed to an absence of irrigation and the nature of the reclaimed soil cover materials, which consist primarily of crushed aggregate with very little fine-grained soil constituents. As such, the cover material appears to provide erosion and dust control, but does not readily support re- TWG15L068 4 December 18,2015 62915 NE 18ft'St,Ste 1,Bend,OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 I i 541.383.8118 wallacegrt twine.com wallaceGRouP vegetative growth, which is characterized as limited in the former aggregate stockpile and access road areas. Limitations The observations and findings presented in this report were based on our December 7, 2015 site visit and review of previous studies and the Amended Reclamation Plan for the site. The professional judgments expressed in this report meet the standard of care of our profession. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. If you have questions concerning this report, please call our office at (541) 382-4707. Sincerely, Wallace Group, Inc. OREGON 71.40, %WOW HERM=1_26. R. Scott Wallace, R.G. Principal Geologist Attachments: Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figures 2a-2d—Site Photographs TWG15L068 5 December 18,2015 62915 NE 18"'St,Ste 1,Bend,OR 97701 pi 541.382.4707 f l 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com ,. .-,-•• : ,:‘,•••:•!'"'"'‘t.'•:::••"•.:4!!t"-.'";",,,,,,:,,,4•!:".1:-. 7.....,.......-:!... .,..s..... :::•••4::• •—",, '••••:',...4:"‘" ..„.•:,...:,-.• • •••,..,,,,-..;:.:.,..7'..'„.1';'...1',.'.....„-,•.--„••••" •"•°.§,„•.;:a.:°••• ••,!.:,• tlik:,,,...--'••••.,.!-. ' — "a' •-••••• • •• i . .1•::• ''.''•':•.: ir"1,•,;•: ••,• • ' „• ••7,•••••••;• •,s.'• •...."1,•,:toL,'-,'.•:/%..t.--'•, ,701460'....,•'"•;,•• • . ,' • .•'.i.• ., . ••-•,:.• ,,, .- 6,0 ..:•• loity,T4,,.....•••••.....:.:;,.!••1',,,, ,:.t..,.7„,.....;;,,*:••••,,...);-!.."4.1,...., .. le....,..„..,„,,i, ii„.,..., ..1!r•„.,,C.,,,..z. .....•"...--ii4.i„,•,Z.6a, •:',•••;•".••••)•,„1......,-. . .....a•.:!•":"..„.■'- 4 .t....•• aL• i .1411/..;a"'•'.... • a •:ar•.....!:a,,•4...4.`,,a,A,..,,7•..........• ar-.-,.......„44.4.11.••••,i1,-...•......^..... ,It.‘• •••■•• . la•.i. .0. •-, .'N•''''••••,. ....„..,!,...„; •:,..„,....„. ,„,„,'„;,:,,'„:7,......,,e,:t., ..),N1,! !.!.•••••••,2, ..\•'.',..$""r:•:,,tor;f:"!:!'•,..,":.t...."•:•:•••••••• ... ...........„. ... .. . . ......., . .. .. .. • •.. -. -....., ••-• •-•,s , , ,"..,, ..„7„.40941.„:„.••,,,,,,:.4104,, • •'IP•••, •- • • -•....---•••:' -"'''''''' . ''':. ''''''''4.. . , - k 4.1*.-,.:,•!•,,•„„•4.-- ••• • 4,,,'-••.,,•.„4.•,-.;•,:• • — :•••,,,A,,,,,,,,,,,,,,••0-L.- ,-4. ••••••4••• :,:•...,,,,••••••••••,,,,••••,,,••••,,v. :- ...7„ op. 1. - . ......e,•1!!•;•,4!„--:. • 1,,,...4,„,,,•!:',!!„;:!•••1 .,:-..,,,•! •' .••!!„.,••••1":'•!!, •!'",,•!.. 1;!!!!!!,;:-••!::1: "'..!,•!•,, .''.••••••„7:!..!„...i:••.^.'• fo°,••,!•!,Ifp:',,, ' -.•:•°:!::!!!:'!:!°!•••••,,••••4:,:::•••'i»;"'„ !.. ' -...•••;:!..nr.•!. ,..-.. •••••,•••-••••,..°••*0 .• •-• !IL-tAkid,":!-•-" -A,, .s'. ...A,:'• ';,..L. . ... 'IS - - ..•-t.••• ••:•,.. •• •• ..,...--.0.••••,......4„,4 . . •,i ,. !!!..,k,•,,t,..,,,c..••,.„ • . -,',-°!!:!' i!!•••:•!...•:':';!;!!:- "' ' ••• .•••-•!"!,,., : , •"•- -. .,!!'• •••••,..°4:, •,,,,s •••••••,0%•!;11,-°••z!.......'••• •••.!ft. .A., .. ••••1 • !' 4(100*'''!:!!!"'1! !!'• (- -!!:!;!!!‘!" •-• '!...•-••••'• • ''.•!!!!!:'•''-• .1 ' !!2!!' "!**"!•::”:!!"•44";;":*t"!°!""!!!' •• ! • •tt 4;:::!•: . .,!..!"i. !!!•• :'•:•••••,...7; Ar.:,„..,,t,..:.,:•••••••••":„.••••,. . :.. .40/...i..,..• . •,...„:.• ...,„ ...- :":",,,,-•...,:,......„-.-„,-....,„,,,...,•••,,,,74••:••••.•4,•••,:mt. i"'"4„.,„„,..,.,,,i!,;•::::: N:k: , ••••,••••,,,,,•••••••„..,,,,,,,,!•••••:,:iii, . ".„271,,,t,' '-r.7....... .T.i'..........,.. t-,'"Pt. .• ..,. \•". ••,;•••••:••-••••.••••,.•-•••,..",...,..,:..k,'„,..,..it• , "k"'"4": •*. -:. • ,,,•.•1, . ..'••,•'''-10,62'-If:. ' ' 4,•/:•.'''■••,.•'.*:.. . .,*. ••,:•■••••'•••••:!'„•;:•:.••!:•••";•••;,44,7^: :4•;;(...!sa.,••••... CI • ,t; ••••• . • . • .... ,,.'''s•r•fr ' --ap,*.' )•• ..,...:•:- ",:,•°1'104,401;••••,'•••••< C%1 aiel...""'• a •• ••'' . .a.)-d• " *"--44 • - . ••••.'......" :"••••''.17 l'ip; • • • • lil C , -. "- ''4',. • c t••••• •-. .".' :.qr'."..'4 • ",-0,----,. : .‘ ..-4.8',"°. cp o 0. en (0 "0 E 1 e3 0 • ,,,,4:.,..4.4.":t• , . Lt •• •..,,,.., -.,, •'.•-'4•.•",:',....:•••••""••"•,',••', • ,,•••••• .111,..*"4"7,,,„:** ...••••:•'; CD 0 11,...,4!•0.7. • „'''• .■■„„ .• •: '•• C ..— CC ›ft :„.:.!.....:. .7. 77:;',si...:„..::„...• j. •••-• • • •' ..*• , ,_ IA.'• .,1'..,',?'.... ' ..."('"'A;'•.. . ,‘'',•• •' .. ••A . . `,S-s::.!Ni,s., • . • .•=1412 .11.... (13 0) C .•4 ''''• ; " ,:' f t .',..., . • ,."1.%. 114,...,• `1) 2 0 .o = .... „,,,,,s .. ...„.... ., • ..-!!‘44,:ii•••....:tii>,... N 0 • 0 ., FT, a) ca "ftr: 0 • , „. • 4f...'"''',•- .- ir- 0 ' „•,...)60. ' • -.- 7 ; rc‘...,..• -",`,.';',..A' 4 . 0 0 43) ." '°••• ';"!N::1•1:;..#.• L."1°S.'"' ••1"••••••••-• 4., CA '' ":•'•. ' .. '• :'•'''''''••• •.',....„••"•'‘.•.';:..:•'• ".., CI) 4) - ... .• '•.1.7'''ai••..,. I(.1-1rj. •a. , ' ...., 7-•"'1).‘ a••...! •"3•.•"ait'..4 O = 7'. 1- ..-. - C) 1-1 ..„ • , .‘...• - - M ••1•••''''••.„.:'•• if .,....„........,„.., 1:3) CZ 1 S. '• "'it"' ..."'''' '• '''"::.1 •f• .''' • y' ".'.:•••••, q..":+:::•:',::•••••■:••••••.•,, .....:"•,••:;„,•.:"‘p,,....•,,•6 y .. . ,,..,*, .6„ . :...• h• 4,7.a ,.•7•,,,7•,,,,,,„..,:,•••'. •,•,:',,••••:...'..".,.•7;. ••••"!7:•••••,.,,,,i• ,,,,, ,::'•• *.,,, • .,•-a.4„.. -'..4.....'.•••'..'• • --••• '.4 "':;•*4"SotItitit.„......*.:.....,•.'.' •''''..,'..." •• .. .'"••'""",i'l,*,,,,ir••-•0:•:.;•-• -•'•,••••• •• -t, • • 0,4, ...." ..:4tolim.,,,,,A.••;:,,4,,•::..,,,:.• ••,• ,,,,c••- . ',',. .1w.,„•••,.i.„.....„„„„,„•••.:•.„":eis„1"•• ,,,O.....•,,,.•,.....»,,Y■' 0.4 • '• '':••••••7T.,,••!1!•• 404!","•:•••!4!!!t"!!!'!!!":,tiftiOi!!!•:' •-• •!‘ -!..,! , !!!„,„,•„,,•.•,.,..„*K.,,,..!!••••••,,,,..,;0„., .„... „,.,,,, a •.::-... ••"•I•aiC,.•tia*••41'• -4".4. ''. •• - , ( ) ,,..4000,aa 1. • "":. . " .a.aa „, :;-...,,.,,. ,7.8..'.., - •••,•,. 4 4.....)'1'• . 1 • '' • -a-..- . . ....v. , . . , 41..44; '1•1,•2"•,....1•`..);"....... .41. :1•37 •1•''•• "•••!'•':•"7...'I ' • ' ...Vk.4';,;.,'".::: . 4 ••••' 4•• „..„....,,,,.L. "• • . .. ,•". . „ . .. . - ..., .••• ......,1•„„ ........,...... . . -• •• - -- !!'. "•••- - 4:!..! - • . ,..,........ , ,. .. •,,. - - . -4 ••• .,,.„ „. • ...„. . • - • •,, • '..!••,,. .! f• '. ••• -••••• ,„ : .d. „..!!„,0 •.!, ... „. •. !•:' .4,•,:!;,,,-!' ,....„ ..! .1"'•i ..„,,,,,,, ..,,,,, •••••••! !•164!!!;••,. !I': ' g ,.1.'!!•,4 •-,„*I0,..64 . 4".•••• ,S■ . * .... ... .. . • '''• ":.. ::'• 1.. . . „„ .. I: ' ." ,i.• .,:',.:,, . A" ......:011.:•••• ' • ,'.• . '''..."4r 17,.'-77...., -.,..• . : '..•.:••• .......... :.,, ..,!:*.„.". '1..0 •• • ::••••"••...."11.„:":‘„'''. . •"'"H :"."1,,.. .. '. ... -, .t ' • .4 2..,,:. ::•.,.::,,,,04$$.a.f.":::,"„t,:.,„;'„,:::••••.„..• '.:...,•'.."°'•:.•1.S:r.. .:. .,„, ,.., , q c f I " & 00 C ■ § 522 o)12 � � / & k 0 $ CI « x.. a. it 4 fr"" w., View looking north along access road from south-central property boundary. ww^*, 1101.400411k 4444, 4 • View looking northwest from central-portion of the site. Fence and Juniper trees on left form the western site boundary. FIGURE 2a TWG15L068 December 18,2015 View looking south along aggregate-covered access road. Note sparse range grass growth in furrows from reclamation seeding. w« i it s 0 opit4tr ' 4'44" .404110" 0.e - „ 4 r View looking north from northern portion of the site. Juniper trees and gully are located near the approximate north site boundary. FIGURE 2b TWG15L068 December 18,2015 11 I View looking east at typical vegetation on adjacent, reclaimed DE mine, from the east-central portion of the site. 4#00:411 ,4 • r • View looking north at residual aggregate stockpiles in central portion of the site. FIGURE 2c TWG15L068 December 18,2015 . �,,i M 9 "k Gk 'G','W.,W�9 n ,I r O.' hlifi � e y View looking southwest from residual aggregate stockpile area. Note well- established sagebrush cover and fence along western site boundary. , y day l'ii.*It..,:... , ,0'1 ' / iii, „, ,,tt , ., z, ,,,„ „,,, t v,„:04v , ,.,,I,„,tt, ,.., ,, ,. , i . , .,, .41r), ro R rl z P i*. ,q J 111 \ 8. �\ '”� � ,A`, \ � � �@ k 9 View from southeast portion of the site looking south. Note well-developed range grasses and sagebrush on east-facing slope on left of photo. FIGURE 2d TWG15L068 December 18,2015 \gr. , / . , ,,, ___, ______., _ __.-_,>-.!,:.,, / , ■ p "gip . Y � Pty z. µ w ." )00— 0 ,l,,.,,,,, ,. ,,, t -1, ,,,,it..tiiiiit„ i r , �'. ��y' n ,WP r P ' !. .111 41:1/4`*,,r4'...",it r',,,f,r","‘.' ''%‘'..,' ''''N'' ,0 Wd —_-1 N'AI Le(1 W L118:I[1 ■ 9l,wi IN n et .. 606. W 1,, a 1, "4.11i, 'iq ak,.1.y.-i,,1 ��y 1,�;' k �C �ik aT?aX tLJ) 1., �>jt Oyu a• a I( r. I am r,1 ag 1 3�Inn o ,,,ri '. ri ,t x is ,c) n5 n 0 0128 O.2 Mk, Western - 111120/2015 l(Yl,,...TF R,?AW 7. , 10 c r«t'.... .. ,._. i; {,rR 7 cur 's i r R '`E PIT ( d B `J�' pµ i T 01/00'':" IfI o 1 C) ■ I �r .n' II Ar^ •' 12 s , . ....r ' R 4 In b i , liw R •m...err 4 �' 4 I W , wa A.Eb •. ww. .'£_ . W ,�, .W. m. YOw`..w rw.vrcau,'Kr J -' Fikoox-r ApFfy SUMMA H Y' ,�...r.... ..,m LEGEND . ..,,,.^..e�.. .v...r.o- ,w.s..r..w LOWER BRIDGE ROAD LLC 0Aym,,r,)Parke.ILL TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN M " A SUfVI BOSION OF PARCELS 2 ANC 3 OF MINOR PARTITION MP.969d Q PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ,"°,• Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 4 i�Zo �!!!irrlitri x � �� g ! ; ;;1 1 ', t it 1::: MEI ::::11111INEll Hi i il Ill .: !ME I lel i e Ei 1 ii:i x6 S I �� opiellimmirigili i11� i ici) a Iii1 [f R ii:iipi :i il i lormi1 1 zet = gel. ; ; imilimuirmili Mil AIM 11111111111 Ohl Si , girt: I a ? NNE 1/1111111110011111k Mil ,[ b i,,,-,,ft-, Igliminimmeptimmompliki 1 F fi'-- plifilliteddriquf.??IiTukiliiiir i 3 FF? $414R 1W 1g Kil VI t gg a @ m r., ! t� g R I �l! R T D n nn,$B re N r ssnnfl,,nrB?P.,,t K� 111 o . sti s K� _ S FB8 ° ��o oo� wNOg a��v'' 3 ohm - lea-IviE2§gosw,,g— gEk tk y is i i n U r apt 1 AUavNg w tiU §8§§'§§a§;ai$• '-§§,1 §$44$wgsao�- --i : ° x� ggam"_ 25n 88g En8-8� $' "g8 oo8$. $a§os5 8 --“6.--""-. g I „„� plop p� N.wo iiisr8ig ' oi' ° ol' Egig g§Ogig50"�a 1 • �• • m l: 1 EFL . _ . . f ti c n bi rAr OW,cC a cC2�2 cC 1 t EV i i q b kC hi{ c: c `c1 g'... i a. 6 Cr a I E•gm�� ��. a o o� F-8'°b° S&E° ..,8e8o �o ' N� ,t !,551,--P, IC y , iV y`° P°. °gym, i o .._ , ° A=B, N m $o� e $88 o s s _ `g r� sgssso pgemg$°g4lUggEggg° ° °N 5°gS1$p 1 b �.... _. 1 . i . . y — n? g8c'eS.° A fs °SS' s°°°g8�' ssawomTN6 w- mm s oN '-- od a' ;IR ? ' ll REPPalli II I! 1111141111111111p1 1111 1,111111111r11111111 " 111 LT19 d ii � + E i i 91911 111101 9 pas+ 141:� t �?s, l3R!, ' i:ti! : Ii! lief;v III i 3 mga3muRm dia In 1.g, C - 4 m R 4- 1 V Y -trigkEM15!a 41 All ,, Fo h- ' q Y&431§� pcs.0 g U— e i • -3 l� 1' i 3 n fail; . .$ � il 3 117 ri $ -Q I - ¢gg ;17101!1 � t W 01 „ulg x JJ ;i" !dftt m A hjIi�23 N IiJfl iPAilz Iih! p i a Rgakeh 1 2 e !11W Fa3g Alli 1 i NH Will�Rq _ U1U1UWf II! Iaal; 1! !!!!: 1 !! i ! II III 11; 111111 ill v Ill i i , i 2:T:z -'r ° Nii il p ¢ 1 1 ��, Oil 1 ilMI § III p '4 a 1 Willi 11 ill III III III I m ; 3 H i. OFg p i January 6,2016 RE: Board of County Commissioners January 6, 2016 Public Hearing File Nos.: 247-15-000521-A, 247-15-000194 CU, 247-15000195-TP Applicant: Lower Bridge Road LLC Dear Deschutes County Commissioners: As a resident of the Lower Bridge Area and neighbor to this mine site for over 20 years, I oppose this PUD,Cluster Development Proposal for many good reasons. 1. It does not conform to existing Land Use In the Area.The Entire Lower Bridge Area. 2. It is the only PUD, Planned Unit Development in this area. 3. It does not conform to the Rural Character and Scenic Beauty of this Area. 4. It does not conform to the Predominant EFU Zoning of this Area. Exclusive Farm Use. 5. It does not conform to the only RR-10 in this area, which is a true Avg. 10 Acres. 6. It does not conform to 2 adjoining EFUs of Avg.25 Acres &415 Acres. 7. It does not conform to the federal "Wild & Scenic River"status that is on that property. 8. It does not conform to the"State Scenic Waterway" "Scenic River"Classification there. 9. It is a direct conflict with Wildlife Habitat Protection that currently exists there to the No. 10. It is a direct conflict with Wildlife Habitat Protection that currently exists to the East. Both the Borden Beck Park Wildlife Preserve&the Wildlife Habitat Conservation Program abut it. 11. It is a direct conflict withthe County Lots approx.400 ft. away that were set aside "for the enhancement of wildlife habitat". 10 Riverfront Acres, Tax Lots 200&300. r ! ■ • r 1 • i• •.: 1 • - • 1 • 1 • 1 • :-.y I .1.1 =A. • I : I F 1%. 12. It does not conform to the Landscape Management Zone, protecting the scenic value here. 'The purpose of the LM zone is to protect and enhance scenic vistas as seen from designated roads and rivers' 13. The Toxic History of both the East&West Sides of this site,what was found there. 14.That Gamma Radioactive Waste dumped at this site that never arrived at Hanford. DEQ said it was sent,106,55 gallon drums-U.S.Dept.of Energy stated they have no records of Waste from De- schutes Valley Sanitation,as the site was called then.Where are these barrels containing 5,830 gallons of radioactive waste?This has a half-life of 14 billion years and will be in this soil long after we are all gone. 15.The vertically fractured DE there can carry contaminants into the River&Aquifer if heavy water/irrigation, septic affects it.So watering that area by the Applicants should not have been done on this highly permeable and porous sub-strata. Proper testing should occur first. =our drinking water needs to be protected,thousands of citizens would be affected. 16. This 110 year old Dicalite Mine has had only 1 acre of land properly inspected. Needs deep core sampling and ground penetrating radar to find the toxins that may remain here before • Page 2 granting any residential use here.An Industrial Use was tested for but not Residential Use. Sub-soil sampling should be done per PBS Engineering's Report, not scoop samples oft the top. Seri"Areas of Concern"in their Phase Qne Environmental SitaAssessmentin May 2007 vs.The Wallace Groups quick assessment this site. 17. PCBs that we the neighbors called to be tested for, were detected by Pacific Power in 200$ In 2007,the Applicant"bladed over the Area"spreading the PCBs all over the West Side, only 1 acres was tested and removed.That area was at the Yellow Water Tower. We watched and took photos. Today I saw in the file on this mine-'1 u= •i.. • el- s i ..11-i - 1. men- tioned above,under section 7.1 Interviewyvith Ovinare, `Mr. Riemenschneider stated that large transformers were removed in the early 1980's by PP&L and recalled that PCBs were reportedly present. The transformers were located on the level area north the processing building. He has no records of clean up."(end quote). Yet when applying for a Residential Re-Zone,he never took care of this PCBs issue. We the neighbors had to report that in 2008. 2a years later. And 1 year after these mine owners/ the applicant bladed the area spreading the PCBs over hundreds of acres on the 410 Acre West Side. • =, :. 1 • -,• 1 1. : • • • I II I a It= 1• 11 1 • 4141:: I • 1_;: :l1r: 1 :�• 18.Traffic&Eire Safety; Only 1 of the 19 homes will be protected from fire, per their Plan.And the traf- fic study report done by ODOT, has failed.Too many trips on this Farm to Market road. The fact that the owner was aware of the PCBs there and did nothing about it and then bladed them all over the West Side to make the site look good before PP&L did the removal,shows their lack of true concern and responsibility to make this property safe for residential use. 19, The Applicants Lot Calculations are off,Per the Hearings Officer's Findings,the Flood Plain should come out and I also caught they forgot the 100 yd. Radius Setback on Lot 1 for the Historic Site. So that takes that lot out. Plus they've included Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve's Lot#1509, so that 2.41 Acres has to come out of their Open Space on Lot#1502, NW Open Space Lot.=1s 5 to 17 Lots 20.The DE Dust blowing off this siteJnto the community for 31 years. Documents attached shows this has been a nuisance for decades,with the same promise to fix it. See the attached"Promises"page includin the 21 Acres still not reclaimed. 5incereW, Diane Lozito, Homeowner on EFU Property near this Mine Site P.O. Box 85 Terrebonne,OR 97760 Attachments:please see next page. Page 3 ATTACHED; 1.False Promises made by the owners&applicant and not kept 2,The Group I Carcinogen Produced at this Site 3.Reclamation Sugary(Includes the 21 Acres not reclaimed that was due in 2006) 4.Habitat Conflicts 5.Traffic Safety 6.Goal 5 Inventory,23.108.040 -Historic Resources 7.Zoning-Predominant Use Is EFU-Exclusive Farm Use-List of Farms/Ranches for miles EXHIBITS: A.WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION AREAS-1/5I16 Map B.ZONING MAP- EfU for over 10 miles along Lower Bridge Way-Dec.,2015 Map C.MAP OFALL 5 MINE LOTS-Noting the DE Is still the same after"Reclamation Efforts"-11/20/15 D.LEAKING BARRELS-11/2343 photo, File No.4950 No more false promises please. It's not enough to be promised the same results for over 30 years but to hear the same reclamation plan for decades and still have no results is an insult to the county and the neighbors of this Mine Site. / SQL(16 On page 3 of my attachments you will see in 1985,the same plants promised to suppress the dust,the trees promised for a wind break and to screen the mine's unattractive terrain from Lower Bridge Rd.also promised....the 21 Acres that needs to be reclaimed. All promised over and over for 31 years.All still not done. And over the years,the same requests for a continuance,a modification,a stall. Stalling for years and managing to do nothing to protect the health and safety of the neighboring properties.A continued farce. The Issues and Neglect on the Owners part: the 3 big ones 1. Records attached show the mine owners knowing of toxic waste barrels that sat on their property for 8 years,leaking into the ground and possibly into the groundwater. Not the owners but the public(private pilot flying overhead)turned it in. The Gamma Radioactive Waste,Toxic Sludge&other toxins are noted on the attached. 2.The owner, Riemenschneider knew of PCBs and it's location,per the Phase One ESA in 2007 yet they were not reported for removal.It took a neighbor to report it and have it removed in 2008 by PP&L. Unfortunately,the owners/applicant had that area bladed in 2007,before testing&removal and spread the PCBs all over the West Side. 3.The owner, Nolan,per the Phase One ESA,"after 3 years of owning the site site clean up was required.Each Drum of Toxic Waste was checked with a Geiger Counter and the drums with"TOO HIGH"of a Geiger reading were taken to Hanford. Mr. Nolan does not have any copies of flies or paperwork documenting site clean up activities". Note that the Dept. of Energy shows no receipt of these drums arriving at Hanford. 6 1/5/2016 Wildlife Protection Areas t� / illYV F a. m.r v� �;; � . w �"' ' , 7 • 0. .„ ' Bord n Beck ildlife • x ro s. e �* w �a 1 AWE •,� d 't 11 Tr, ,yam .; mmK�• \ 11J�yyA( i {• a 1 I F J t �> ,,t fir 1 . \ • • ^ r„, n s _ ,.,. ., ., . . ... . ,....:......,....,....„.„.„..,,,.,....‘ •.... , . i,„ . l'7 4' '.-'• '•: '••••••,;•.i•.•''..:::.•••••0:':'.:': : .-...4.'”..,,,,i.0......;,,,,k'''' ',:, .'", /7LINOPECH11:41kl-e144 .• . • ".::.... ` 0 t .i /JO) y "•<u arr x•,! r •,- a, '''''t ter / .. 4, , F ,z 1x •; �}' s ,�' G►OUtIGY�o( •,,*' y 1.,..,--...... . 4 y.� �". a "• ,:' a .:.,., "•.. r . ; " r •)l 1,„ . .-d ,. 3.N `yk P..• y 9.: y •1.i •..• ,A) ) ^', y 1 w 7 fi Awry ,.r 'i y n 'y a'y+a`rY' r N "a . • vt NA; 1', '° mod.. l va . N. T k,., T • . ,. y * it 'G. R�. ',:�Y°Y•r ..0 a .:'.t • < 7 w m ''gy�pp n( ,yi \, i " • . '.:mom_ ,4 .�?. t.: w ,.0 •'„ ^e�'^•1+ eaw'°",lm• "'t :.ra,waun+..w,ue.w aw�wnar'. .. a'`°�`1"wiw. tw..w.me+�..w�r�^. r+,+w„• • i6u aoo eoo Lot 8 Eagle Rock Estates 4 rr= el Borden Beck Wildlife Park County Lots Western Deschutes County Property Information - Dial`s i Zoning Map for account 150318 1 n �. 1+ ,.. wa,N w .. rr w" ew � 4 4r +�'L ^" 1 • N .+�� to N . w ,y , 1. �w1� I' �Ir A 1, , , .,„• ,, . . ... ,,: •,..„, . • „...1,.,,„„.. ,i,„ ..., , ,,, .,.. , o.diy Y ro,,�'`w w c: - '. ^:. y., .. rr,ry `-''" .-'.. ."1'— w ' , !` w r •�, qc•u I•FI-I` ∎., 1 I i ' " ,` i� t r1U 1 r FF a, 'r� Ff 1111 - - ' E f t 111 k?". F W 1,+7 A �" " 1 - - - ^( �� r11 rW.1ir �aw k•lSri rr n 4.; { a $ k � r r ti A r-. r— I _ 1 I +aF-'►I °` w oF:� •,,, "' ,, , SB ,'1, ,;��.■ f:r11 1 -0�_ 'FFIILE-r r +s. c'1 w w r ^^ � .m "�a ,? II_ ip rr �� � — 4"�� r _ _ r 4. i nt " IF111E �,, t :' Itir.l_. 1 r, r ,: r s 'l f rIILF r ? e a yW,••,..';n .r' rr F; 1 f Fgr 1 5 1 / f�>i1R11P, _ ,..,-.0 s=, �y%t �,i t u� I' a r y� * „I r� 1 � 1 , 1133FF''RML:LL99r1 '" r �.r 1 F_ 1, ,x L I rl . ` *' �' ,' , I r_ F 1 I -.1 r I ,1 I 1 rr ., k I' If...Fl ` F.1., 1i1'•fe —� ,,. rrl;lrr t k, ui� Icy , I �YY ' — 1 — — Lk : 1 � y , - BSI tr,-r lr F ��`';�. I 1."I I1�N Ir w r 1g al�1 „ ley,:. °"ro d - / ''n I + I ' 1� c , . ul I 1 ctt''' rS '.'YIII F ` ti i r ff'rII`�:�,r rrr"e ' 1 �' r. I ,/,' 17..,„�!� - ^' :: I ■ ,', ' r r —1 `i y ,,_41,,,,,,r r 1 tf Ty';t l a f 1 _ 1 .., -, ,• 1'� I , ,44! r FFI . 1 , I �, .a.,� � rl ' 1 1' 111 1rr' 1•1:T=.:,1'11.'� r �r 11 ...Y.�. (1 Y n 1r11I 111 ..l•F f 1 ,'I i — — - _ 1 + IA ,�� 'FF 'I _ 1 'Yco t,", ',"14 ,r.1; 1I+ .� 1•I , , I°'` . 1 - t 1—{' 1 ` a a `* '""..:,,—,...r' I.111^,.1r.r +, 0,7-6f.,;.,,r 1111_1' f'-',12.;.11.1'.,,'. 1 1 I' r.,11_1.,..1: ri r 1 I 1..'":",'''''13” - :.r '' ��'. I.;fit .. ..' Ic : 1' !a°y n i 1 I I ` i ,, I z r.FI1IF h r y ewe I a "'i 1 s4y1■ P I _ t v"` 1 w r} }� d 1 , '�~ i t! y 4'— — ,,,••• • I` ',p r 4, +• d : ' 1 yiw ?�"" s ,,, I �r�Ii11--1 r lE 1...11t T I-�F•1 * It ,1 ; s4` x'..4.11,:..: ,,,ww* ..,, n4,,.„71 f k,, 1;1'1 r r. I r I -..•r•,:l 1 r.11 1 1 r t � � " f It I 1.r .I I_Fk 1• rl [+I I�.L F:7,< 1 � r r L.I rr F'-:4.i "'I P` y N v 1 fly %T rr I F-1 11'.,,,...44,1-•:1-,•.......0„..,,, '�5 1 , •HI 1� I F I 1 . .. �, ` r ' r.r- r. x r1 — = • ',- 1 — 1 '-a�;- 1 1 F..,. Fy — r7 ♦ 1 ;ur1, 1 I .,r _ F'f,1 ;..� y rte, I ,....„,-,r.„„.,,-F 1 f, 'm 1_ _ v t.: 1 El-I ITf,f•• 'ri r,�r , - r II:. fr 111'110 Iy,l 1 1�1 .:•F.1 F11I�1 r_ I I 1., .1 rl r1W.1 r I r F �.FI r "� 1 n I Nrr ti f I 1. 4 . 1 I — — — F._ ; E:� 'i 1:-\ P}I S! 1 I LFtIII , I , I';a 11r.t r1 ,I . r ,' ,___,./ I _I� 1 _' 1, r r 1°_ 11.1 r f f 11w',� • F: .I�.L r _ — . 14In,lFl 1 1 I I 4 r1— 0, . Tl ��44 Illq 1 r`r I •:._rlll Ir, fh.I .lr - - h-11 1. 1 r r r ' _ e l�_r r 1®I E 1 I I I I'1,,,. t.-1/it, 1 r r ' .. r I l f F 1+"^"rI�11,r 11■ _ ° I r 11 t' 1 — iras, I_ 1 1 ,,L1-.- —1 Dl,,.„-,e`, 1�,•'1;r•7-' G1. dw' [II 141'.' I n"!-1 .• r — I 1 I r r r` 1 ,r1 I ” 1 r r r•'•1 I I;' z,(a sri Diglttl .be Ge f-ye. Fart ;t4r�Ga" mitit �{lu C1NFSIAirhus. r if F' 1+1�D I r[�CfA USGS X. Getm'app�4t1,Aera id FfC IV";! -141 SnlisstQIlo alidL,`. Mfr bl;" S-r Com.irnfIrtity, Deschutr ap,•: 1 v 1 ,,,,,',,,':11,-,,,I,,,:;',,',„1,,,, ,';'101',, Map and Taxlot: 1412000000200 �` I�'� 'tillllli�l9,iiry,,' ''d"` '` 4`4 V u , 44 �'•,t•aka 6.11,x.,� 'r 1 l l 1 {ll,,l"u 1r ,iri,i ii . :' � �,,i, ¢ 1,111111 1 ' �∎, C!, wN . ,m » I � ra � N� "." °+. Ltiiver k .. Iti 411 '14."4\ ` �.� act *�,• » a` w "„. ^ w +° " 4.,. J. 4 a `^• ,, 1 .„ ,I#. 7"7" \ S: - 'e / ii,,,,t .. N „ • , i w „a,NW#Lowr�we Y e 1r w r 44 a 5 , . R , opyright-?)Mt.[moo DeLor ea NAVTEQ, 1 [tI rj� n ry�� cr.' Dioi!.lclo o-,C�eoF7 e, Earth tar ceogra,hie , Mg U=DA: =•c p, 'c c -to -ppi g,AerogGf to IDA IG°,swisstopeoladft Calalgiggr Corgi munity, a HEM N-L&'rrn-, t Mapmylndia, pen5treetMap contributors M"..:a z 0 0125 025 06 l Miles Western estern Tit,e & Escrow 11/20/2015 Mine Owner - Incorrect in his statement on Leaking Barrels: FICTION: Bend bulletin Newspaper Article: FACT: Current Mine Owners, Reimenschneider, Weigand, Nolan, were owners during this clean up and were made award of the Leaking Barrels and what they contained. M 4 ' t om• 1M S , RR te „ r.... 7'« w ` „...,,,,,,,, - No--ider.,,f, 1 ...„, ,, . , __ J h,. . 1 ER ` ,. rte,.. .r , I ,, „,.. ry ..* .t,,ti ,,,„„ , . ., ._ ., .. 11•:, ' . . ,.., . ., OREMITE MINE-LOWER BRIDGE PICTURE DATE: 11/28/83 PHOTO OF: SOIL IMPACTED BY A LEAKING DRUM -removed during Deschutes Valley Sanitation Clean Up (See ECSI#35) FILE NO.: 4950 T N THE GROUP I CARCINOGEN PRODUCED AT THIS SITE The History of the Mine Site West of Terrebonne-The Subject Property 1920-1963 The Cristobalite Factory Years The purpose of my presentation is to present present day health and safety issues to help protect anyone who might live here and all that live in the Lower,Bridge Basin. From 1920 until 1963 four companies extracted diatomaceous earth. To reach the DE, an average of 23 feet of topsoil was removed from most of the site's 576- acres. What remains, especially in curved areas of the proposed building site is fractured, vertically fissured DE. The topsoil is no longer at the site. The sole purpose of this site was to cook Diatomaceous Earth. This was done with 2 furnaces that were 50'in length and 6'in width.According the Terrebonne Lower Bridge Mine plant Foreman, D.F. Dyrsmid, the number 1 product made at this site was diatomaceous earth heated from 1,600-2,220 degrees F. The process Is called Flux-Calcining and converts freshwater Diatomaceous Earth Into Cristobalite,a Group 1 Carcinogen on a par with Asbestos regarding dangers of inhalation and associated respiratory illnesses,cancer and death. Extreme heat used in the process reduced processed DE to dangerous respirable particulate matter. The mine employed 65-70 people, operated 3 shifts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.The waste from the cooking process is estimated to be from 1-5%. According to the document written by the plant foreman,cooked waste was taken to a dump east of Deep Canyon. Why does this past history matter? It matters because Cristobalite does not biodegrade and this health hazard was dumped at the site. This mine was a Cristobalite Factory for 43 years. Conservatively, using a 1% processing waste level, the amount of Cristobalite waste dumped at the site using the foreman's figure of 300 tons processed per day would produce hundreds of 1 thousands of tons of cooked Cristobalite waste over 4 decades. The plant brought 300 tons of material to the processing building on the day shift. This equals 43,680 tons per year X 10 years=436,800 tons of cooked waste Around 2006, this area of the site was graded and contoured before it was inspected with legitimate deep core samples. Did the grading of this site spread cooked cristobaiite waste all over the western portion of the mine? The History of the Mine Site West of Terrebonne- The Subject Property 1975-1983 w The Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Years In 1975, Loren Kramer, DEQ Director, issued a Solid Waste permit to Deschutes Valley Sanitation. Untreated hazardous Waste was not permitted. On December 31, 1976 DEQ allowed for Untreated Hazardous Waste to be delivered and dumped at this unsupervised site before the DE lagoons were deemed safe to contain the waste. In February of 1976, Hydrologist Frederic Lissner wrote Loren Kramer and stated that the soil was permeable and would not contain the waste and that the waste would likely migrate to the Deschutes River, aquifer, Deep Canyon Springs and area well. Upon learning this news, Loren Kramer and Milan Synak of DEQ quit their jobs and knowingly F left this hazardous waste that they knew was a threat to the environment and humans at the site for 8 years. Perhaps this is the origin of the DEQ term "No Further Action." Leaving radioactive waste, cyanide, chromium, VOCs, toxic sludge was a violation of Oregon laws and a criminal act in violation of ORS 167.785. Not one person from DEQ was prosecuted. To this day, DEQ has never admitted wrong doing. In 1983, a person saw the drums in a photograph and notified authorities. At that point, EPA Super Fund site manager Phil Wong got involved. DEQ did not follow Mr. Wong's directive to monitor the ground water after clean and to make provisions for oversight. In 1985, Tom Hall of DEQ pronounced the site cleaned up after cleaning only 1 acre of a 576 acre site. In 2007, 41 tons of topsoil with dangerous levels of PCBs were found at the site.They had been there since 1941. PCBs do not biodegrade.hazard."They were found by me reading about 2 substations at the mine and asked Pacific Power for the clean up documents. They did not have any clean up documents and went to the site and found PCBs. 1988-2007—East Side Unpermitted Minlno, Hot Asphalt& Hazardous Waste Years E.A. Moore was contacted by the current mine owners to extract gravel. He was there from 1988-2006. His son Scott Moore, also worked at the site. During this time E.A. Moore operated for years without a permit and was fined over$16,000 by Lydia Taylor of DEQ. In addition, Mr. Moore created a vast illegal soil waste site and was forced to remove all solid waste by the Deschutes Count Sheriff. Bob Johnny ran a Hot Asphalt plant on the east sides if the mine. There are large asphalt piles on the west end of the proposed building side of the mine. Nega Hudson from the National �. Library of Medicine in 1993 states the following:"The main hazard associated with asphalt is from the PAHs(Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons) and alkyl PAHs that can move into the ecosystem from the breakdown of asphalt. Since Asphalt contains so many toxic and carcinogenic compounds and since leaching of harmful PAH compounds has been so documented, it should be kept out of rivers, streams, and other natural waters."There are 20' high piles of asphalt on the east side of the mine that have been breaking down for decades. The History of the Mine Site West of Terrebonne-The Subject Property In April of 2006, Scott Moore was cited by Jeff Ingalls, DEQ inspector for Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 classes of hazardous waste violations on the east side of the mine. The violations included bringing 55 gallon drums of used oil to the site, the abandonment of lead acid batteries(hazardous waste) and burning hazardous waste materials. €. Inspector Ingalls stated, "The owners of this property at some point in time were responsible for the burning of several piles of demolition debris that contained prohibited materials.". 2006-2015 The No Apparent Health Hazard Years Not one environment assessment has ever asked what was made in the old mine buildings, measured for airborne respirable particulate matter, checked for PCBs at two power stations that predated 1977 and ran on PCBs, checked for subsurface water or used ground penetrating radar to find buried barrels or hazardous waste. There is no apparent health hazard if you are not inquisitive and don't read the extensive history of the mine and actually learn about health hazards that are clearly documented in it's 100 year history. If this mine, at large, is not seriously ins pected with truly legitimate tests, this development may well not provide any tax income for Deschutes County and may end up costing the county money in litigation for nondisclosure of the site's history and subsequent health issues that arise. What will a erson who buys land here do when they learn of the mine's toxic history p Y and without real estate disclosure? Will "No Further Action" and "No Apparent Health Hazard" prove this east side and west side toxic waste site safe and has been cleaned to Human Residential Standards like EPA Region 10 told me must be done? Respectfully Submitted, David Jenkins Citizen of Lower Bridge-- Deschutes County 4 A I. Or- tP Y 4, • �ii4 `•i•Nt, • r'4 d q "wf , : r ' ^" u P'. • a' •,xi t •, • as �' y ,,. �,. ,",P 0 - ---- 0".';:" d"•'. •!d•:id'i•••• ' ''•'••• • '''''''''';'''4:4'''..11,,,:',,':1.1••,'.'11!..i' 4.,1;'•'.111P.41...,r,•!,;' 4.-.,,,,,,..,4,1.,„„„44,1„„„..,,,,• '■ '•!•••••,0•,..02.. • , 44.7‘..",l'hItitiii . •d"•":".• "'"'..."' ."4, .•'' • I i • .. . ":".„,„,.. •,.•.,' 1•diold„•:::9104,1,:!""7" •• • , :. I V" •„.',;": ••••• • ''." 11611 • i d'III ....„‘„„:„..........r.„.,....,„.. .....,...,,,......:„.„„,„.,„.„,..„•.,.,„ ' Milk . ° • • I-! *"..:: ' . :, • •••i',•'. i ..it..•••,.••••••,.• . .., • . ".:71 f ‘*. • • •••1••'• i' ...':• '.:;......'''. •.••••+. lit Will . • ........ ;,..1.,.!:::•..•••,...'''.2....„"• .:..•.. •. ' i • ... "'"' '" •''.','':!'.'''''''. ...'„••• I Mil .:..,Iii; •....:•4'''!::;••..I1.*'::::...:.'.'.•. 1.••::.'.• .:.....::!.4.,•:..."0..•'" '''...:".."'''.":•." •. ...•"'. . ' ' '' '•'.".':; .'.01'1: ':"• ' In" ..';r:,:•:•:;:•.••'.•!•:,'::::,:• .' : ::: • r,....,A„.„,..... ... 'it,................. . . „,,,,.........,...: • •••:rt.'IA;,.:''.; .'• • -^...........,.54..,......,•,:•.......•- , • •,...• .k.,. . r fr,.,,, •:14"rt,..N.,,.:::i,!„,,, ....... ' I • ,, . .. .,,t,..„ . ,..,. ...„ .„,„:,... ,. :....,, ., :"••!. ; •••. .•, • :r::. :r.::::01i..:1;;• ::::.#1:;•.'::; • ....:•;,., .'"••::;t1 •':."1:":: :" , :: sit,1.:,•••••••:•01.,..3:••••• ••:•,:r......ri.:•;::•- ..:::::i;;;;;..;•:: r • l'.r.•:•• :A.::::::;;;:.A•:••::::: : r;. 'i"'N... •• •::::.••:!•!4:•••:••::r:;::,:;: •,•,.: ..;;..-.. , 1 •••N„,•••,:• II 'S 0 .; • '''::.;:.:.k.;'.•;:.:::::i ::. 1:':''.:" ......:. a •••• ,.•1,..N A-N.:.„,.,•.•.•.N....•„..• 44.•.4.•.4.A... . .„.....• • . ..•.••....••••4..4 ... •.•. •• •• ...• • •,. • •.1.,......„••.N. ..•I.• X N Arr..••• ..A.^...A A•.• •■•A•i •,...• . ........, AA, .••••• t•:•:•" •........:::k; ":::::".'••:::::r....r..., .... .. V •••.• ..., :••:...;;••••••.:....:!:;•......:.:..:.,...,::::c,• .::•••••A.........1......::•........•.......?•••::::::.:::!...r...::•,:.•••,...::•,.:::••••••,..!,....,:::•:::::::•,,,•,...., :'":;':"::::':: •,,,,,,,,,Nr•.,A, N.. •.••••••:::,„•:•••: -ii, ••••••••• •,444•••••••, • ••44•4•::•• •,-14 .: ..... ,, ,......;,4 4.,...g.......,...„1„.„.,411.1 ""'"":""" : • •,...... ..t,„..A,,,..„„:„.,,a„,:,...,.... 4:4,1,441• •44,4t44.A.44,,,"..1.44:;•44,444,1444,4,4140, .4.4, 11{,ii.•44,1411i,!,:i!•••!••••:•il.....:,,•!:.:•i:,.4:•.4444.:••4....... 4„1,,. ....* :• 1 .... .. :„....""Ird""••••„.....•" d•- • ' •1.1":""••••.0"..!•0,.,,••!••di!:::•••••,..."0..":"±Iid" " I .."qi :":"" ,:,,,4•, :••:,•:•'•::;:,•::„":"N":""l••••J•••4,0;;"::;;;;:::il.:104:2::.;4::::: 'S ,..,,,.••"4:1;::111•1::•;!•..'".::. :•:'•:;::••.:::.'. A• r •.;,;:r''•Li;;.':,•:::::-::,:••!•!...11:1:;':.:;:tg•;1417:(:..;:t:P.::•::::riti.;./r: • gii5::'•:.;.::•••';:!!:•A"•::...;:A:.;•;•.;...1'. :::::'";• • '4 r.• • 1 V:::••:•••1144.• r 1 . • . •4••':;.:::::::• ::: i.•.:••: :: 9,,,,...4.11,... , , #11!•::.t4::::;;I:::::::::::,::::it.••:::„::::::::,....;:;:':•:::„'„%:•:....::: . ::::::;:'''''.4'''''''rr'1•'!::•4:1:1;•••;:'''.:.::::„!:.:::„.„;::'.:.„'N'„';'•'„„:::•'";:" .'::"'" .. ••4•.A.,.r;•:::::::::::::;r::::::;!;.••: :•...•: : ;;•r 4....:•;,:;:n;•:::,:;.••••••• : •:A;.:.: .•4..::j;':•:.•:*{:::::'..,:ilkithi:!g:111.;;;;!,•:::•;;::::::::.:,,::.•: ' r..:,,,,,:::A,•::- • • .•';:'... ::.':::•.. ::'•%;:ill At kt: — "'•' •# •:. .4...•:::i.;.•:::::ititii:::::::::•:::: :: • ...,,, ••.•• •••••••••••••••••....,,,,,,N.,,,,,,,•A • ••••• •••••• •,,,,...:trilt::::*:::::::•::::::::•:.....- . ••AA,t. •., ...AAA••••,......,••••••••• .: r.••■•• - •...A•..••••• ••••••••.•••••.•...•. t :;•": - ::"•-::••:•-•:‘•.;;.:• ; • :• gifil.'.:;:::;:1;;;;;::• • • • . :"... It ..4.; ;•..'.: : .....;::;:1:11.11';':;::::;r:; . •.4;::•::::A„::::; lit:Z.:.'.":'. • : .•"... ': •" ::'.10:.. I '':.:;::.;••':„.;:';:„.„:„„.:•:'„:: : '• • ••:•••••A......:•4 .....k.,::::::0:::::;:::;;;:P..:::• •:•::rii:::ir..,• •:NI: :•;'•:•. ;.14;;:tif..:005:..kr:::.;.;-::••••::::•;:•:•A::••••:••••., „ 611:::4::•:••• '• ..•; • . • r' ," ' ;""•!•":',..4.1111,!4•, 4. •'''s• ....•,....•••":„,..„,••••„4„,„... • .•• .::..„. .." ‘... .• ....,.....„......„...... ....:, x.... 1111.!:•,:.• ••.. —..... . . :.:. ° .1.;•;,, , ,...,....1.itic!4:1F ••••• _ )‘'.4-:-... .,:.......„.,:.,.,:„.. . ••:Not.:: .. it„ti•:•,..H::•• • .• • ..:," •,, .,.. ...:•••••••4„•!„••:,,,,.;., , ,. ..,••t ., .. :„....•.....••• • ...'" ::-....:•::••'.•••••• •••,....... .•:;,....:.• ....,.....„.••••••,1,t...... . • ..•••••1:„:',. 1,,..1/4 •iiik,........•• . . '•• „,„„„,01.,.,,,... • • ..„:„.• ,... ,,..,t,„4,1,1„„..„. , ,,, ,.. i„... . . - • • „.... , toti:..„ ........ , 11 • .,,,Ilia,„„:. .4•16',"1"••••,...:.::::i'i'i;;,•-1., P.' ."'.11',,'''...", "•,''..; •..,.... ...... ••, .••.0.,...0. • di"...h.,.' •■ •-•"„"••0•••••••• •10!"•••■•'''''":"•••• • ' • • •,TE."4,". : .# :• : '" , i 9 .11',„'.„'„''"•..... ... '''. II041,;..;.‘,.••(.4.4 .. • . • .,,... 4 •104 • , •+„:•,-4 ( f... '.' •• r.. ,,. . . ..,. .. : . •, ..•. ii•• .... v, .p.!. ...,.. !1••:.1•1;:ii:E.:......•' ' . ' . ","*"*•• ,":„ ••••■„.."d ::•1! .* .'.?!'".,.....'"".'"... d"...".I..':".!1°..ii• • •••—t , ,,. 44,4•••4••,•,„•:•:'.:::•:. • #..,:'. , ,',......,i„,si,,,......",:::,..1 ,,,..',.•,:...1.P.. tit$ '' ••‘.... •. , . ' ,...::.„.iii.,:,,,.....',# 4.,,:• „!!!..,. ....„..,.,;;;!..... „-.„,,,a• .. , . ,,. ...„ i.•4,4•4,44.:••••: ,• •,• • 444 - -4•• ,• 4,- • • ,4 0.1 — 4 4444 • , N.. ,■ ” . '',- . - !•• '.. ': 4.•.,... . .4 i •,.' 1,Ar.i....4.4,•p•"■"" "2::.• ••••.4:::."0::'•""..... •"'",•II":"""4.,1:.: •"..".".",:"••••"••",,:":""","•••,"." • ••• •• ■ ••••••• „. .. ... . 'H.'. „ • :4,,, .: ... . " ,...„..,„ , -„:„.„... . . . %I .'... :••::!".''•f:•'''',Pi:,..i,#•••' 4;'.'".• •••'•.••P•i• i i' •''r•.''•'.....:.:.:..:• : I 1 : :• ...• • ,, •' ••• . •'I . ''• •' ....:'.:..: .;‘,..1.,: ',. ..i.,..:,) ,. .4,,,i..•,::4:!. : ir . — , i . . —isi. .• .:,. ..,. ..40 '. ,.k•.,...4.,,,:',' ••:,, , i • i. • 7.,... 1„ ,,J.,•,.- ...,,,,i'..:',‘,# , „, •••••., ',, .. t 1 .„.•,,„„ ; .„ '', 11„;:4'• •:::::".•:. .".;:....;1", 4• : 1:.!::1•••;;!•••:••••,.;•••• ,• •••:•••■ ••• • • N • J:a••••:,:•::.•• • ; ;A.': . •'•: ::::::....:•'" 1:.;'::1::::.; :. '• •,j.j;;;.:.,4....'• (I •• • • A 1•••1 •••;'; N. .1•• 4 I • :' : ••A:, • ...r:::!:".•:•.1:.: 4. 1 „„„•,,, , .„:. .,4„:„; . ..t. :•,..'„..!,..4)•.•„....• :,,..,,,ii.,:• ••:!:.•.: , i $ . . , „. .. .„0 „„„...,..„.• •., lit 4.- ,..) ., ii •• '.,s4 .,..„ ..i„.Af•• :,,,. ••••i Ili it!, . ,,....• ' •,:•2'. . ' ...hii• ?• I (...- • ;,..„, v r,....H , .,..,,•••••• „„;,,,,,,,,,,,.,:: ...„...., ..,„.'„,!„;„ •"••••,c,,•••„, 1...„..„...;,)„.• „.„„••• 1:41,1, „,...„ ',..... 1 i ,,' 1:•• ::',. 1 • ; ..,,:i';.! ••"...,, . * '.;01..,. .11III;I: r::'•:,• .,. dl . ••,•••••:"1: : .,d. ".,,•.::::"..... .'": ,••••■:,"•;:)■:!",„ I.'".". !,"I ..:::. ..., ! ••••• ... ....,• „.:,..,:.......".:. ...:..... ...„7, ....... ....1, ...- . • ,:: .• . ”""::".: ',0.,.•.:. :: •...,- : ..,..... !::::,...:.•.,.-; '.I, ',, '....41". • •":4• !:.•••4',,'1'....•• ..-..:., ,... ,„„.„. .4". ••■•,..,,..,,, • ;... •• . .. ,...... ..... .,,,..„, ... .. •.....„. .. •.. .,....„.,.„ "„"•••■••,,,....,,, ::':i,,•",:f•''',•••::::„•,. ;„ . .. ilil;'11...,. •(• .1' ••,. .. .. ••••• •,..,7•A .", •.■ ,r.:, . ;?..:•,,,,,...,..10,,,„..„,..,,, .....,....,.A:',...!•.',...,..• ••„ :',.;"•::":".,1„:.....:„...if,',':. :i....,4'1! : '''.'''''.•1:!...:'1:1.1.!i:::::',:.:!i„lil:!..... .i,:',11:....,.,..+!''''',11k. :,:!...••."'"::::. ...it. .:,. .,. . 13u 2i A-D cis, source, when inhaled, can cause respiratory irritation. Health effects of such exposure can include sneezing,coughing, difficulty breathing, and eye/nose/throat irritation. These symptoms are usually short-term and resolve on their own once exposure to the airborne dust has stopped. Because DE is very absorbent, it may be especially irritating because of its ability to dry out the moist membranes inside the nose,throat,and eyes. Airborne dust generated from the mine or from the Deschutes River valley in general could cause these kinds of short-term respiratory irritation in residents,particularly during dust-storm events. Figure 5.Dust storm at Lower Bridge Mine site(April 4,2008;David Jenkins) is i4a nh 9Px .,q ` 4 rJ Y ti ,, 1d 1 t tm fi ti x' „ i 1,1444i irr„ Cristobalite Inhaled crystalline silica(cristobalite)can cause a debilitating respiratory disease called silicosis and also increase the risk for lung cancer [6, 7]. Cristobalite is considered a health hazard only under occupational conditions where people are exposed to more than 0.05 mg/m3 for a full work week over 15-20 years [6, 7]. The community surrounding the mine site has expressed concern about residual cristobalite at the Lower Bridge Mine site related to the DE processing that occurred there for 42 years. Some have expressed concern that the dust may get into the air in sufficient concentrations to cause silicosis and increase the risk for lung cancer in nearby residents. After evaluating the scientific literature on the subject [6-20] and observing current conditions at the site, EI-IAP concluded that an increased incidence of silica-related lung diseases in residents near the mine site is unlikely. This is because the exposure to dust during periodic,even frequent,dust storms is quantitatively very different from sustained exposures averaging 40 hours/week over 15-20 years (the conditions under which silicosis and silica-related lung cancer typically develop) [6, 7]. Based on current epidemiological studies of silicosis, EHAP found that it is unlikely that sufficient quantities of respirable size crystalline silica particulate could become airborne and reach residents for sufficient periods of time to induce silicosis or silica-related lung cancer. 10 w U , Z y 'r ,ry i rt kjV Z ;4r • ; "rep • • • • '.:.arch 3,2008- DE pollution with Silica polluting the entire mine site and all a Lower Bridge Basin 3 sq.m e area). -e residence in the foreground is located at Eagle Rock Estates and is not located on the mine property. The proposal is a 24%effort to protect health&safety at a site rife with hazards. Reducing pollution on some of the site will not prevent_pollution on the entire site. On January 15,2008 The Daniels Group proposed to the DEQ that they want to work 4rP together to"control any dust emissions from the property."To achieve this goal,they proposed vegetating only 53%of this 576±acre site.The 53%figure is incorrect. On March 13,2008 the owners applied for a"Limited License"to water only 140 acres. °ad This leaves 76% (436 acres)of exposed DE with no topsoil or water to prevent uncontrolled airborne emissions.This proposal to water only140 acres reduces vegetation efforts to only 24%of the entire site, not 53%as the Daniels Group proposed to the DEQ. The proposal states, "Certain portions of the site may have the propensity for creating dust under certain conditions. "Certain portions" should be defined as the entire site. ' "Certain conditions"should be defined as whenever the wind blows. The Daniels Group stated that they cannot agree with all of the DEQ findings. fit' There is no"source of water" available for the"entire site,"short-term or long-term to sustain vegetation and prevent pollution.Temporary water rights(a Limited License permit),will not sustain vegetation long-term. Geologists have warned that the DE is vertically fractured and that additional water precipitation alone)would speed vertical migration of contaminants to the aquifer, the river and Dry Canyon Spring.The proposal to water in the toxic waste area ignores PC , these warnings.The DEQ stated that the site has not been cleaned up to residential ^° i t irrigation in the toxic area and residential standards-74 septic stems 140 acres of pivot p y p will increase the chances of dangerous migration- "~ P:.Ke6of18 r., z ro,,i$h� h rya dit; Cr.+1 nwy,.Ak✓^ t p at q�. mire • 2. tober2,2007 is DE pollution was created by a single truck traveling across the site on and un-watered road. To build 74 homes at this site,there will be far more than 1 truck frequenting this site many times per day. The proposal states that DEQ/MSHA conducted a test on this site to determine Crystalline Silica and Cristobalite content.It is our understanding that this sampling was taken using methods that apply to OSHA"Industrial Standards."According to the EPA, Region 10,samples were not taken for"Human Environment Standards." 77' It is also our understanding that samples were not taken to EPA"personal ambient air quality tandards" and were not taken in"windytwhite our conditions for respirable Crystalline Silica and Cristobalite that residents of the Lower Bridge Basin community have experienced so often since 1990. :, The site will put residents at the site and Lower Bridge Basin residents at risk with long- term,low level exposure known to cause irreversible health issues.Air samples must be taken with EPA approved air quality monitors to meet the national ambient air quality standards(NAAQS). e8of18 al rid Fa (DE 1.) 1VARN LNG: Breathing Silica Dust Can Cause -- -A Progressive, Sometimes Fatal Lung Disease- May Cause Cancer The vast majority of sorbent material used today is clay or day based (i.e, diatomaceous earth). xa, Clays are composed primarily of silica (510)and the dust from these products contains ystalline silica. Silica dust has been linked to a least two critical health problems: silicosis, a progressive and sometime fatal lung disease,and cancer.The consumer will be pleased to know that governments are starting to do something about warning the public of these dangers. On November 4, 1989,California voters overwhelmingly approved.Proposition 65, commonly referred to as the consumer protection act,consumer product warning label law,etc. As a part of this program,California now requires that consumer products containing clay and diatomaceous earth in the form allowing dust generation will have to carry a warning label. Under#12601,MA: WARNING- THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS SILICAS KNOWN zr ' TO'THE STATE 01-CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER" would be the warning k`j appropriate to clay and diatomaceous earth products. ;Kiza'i; It does not take large amounts of clay dust to create a problem.New U.S. Department ° of Labor,OSHA standards for silica-containing dust have been established at 0.1 ^ milligrams per cubic meter. eased on manufacturer's data a typical clay absorbent y" contains approximately 0.1 percent dust by weight. ^ , Do not forget that we are talking about dust in the air which is very light material.It yi ' �( `' does not require much weight to create a respectable dust cloud. 141 N Calculations show one 10 pound bag of day that is 99.9% dust free includes 4 grams ,"?, of silica dust, Four grams is enou4h to contaminate 40,000 cubic meters of space or 00 average homes. If evenly distributed,the quantity of silica-containing dust would ,Fri ' require each person in the area to wear a dust mask in order to meet work-place health standards. a t �k� �R ;AI yy x y,+y aye K W n � 3� � of h+ttp://www.no-nukes.org/nukewatch/sumrn.er99/isotopes.html (R 1� l Isotope Emits Half-life ,�s X Uranium-238 alpha 4.5 billion years used in new depleted uranium weapons and tank armor; contaminates 50 million tons of U.S. uranium mine wastes left in open piles Nuclides of Radiation Significance regularly foundag LJ,eyel"Nuclear Waske Shinnme Source: Radioactive Waste Management Associates, 526 W. 26th St.,Room 517, New York,NY 1.0001 Gamma radiation are photons,i.e. high-energy light-waves and "pack a wallop" traveling in straight lines,knocking loose electrons, causing ionization,and leave a track of ionized particles in their wake. i Gamma radiation is identical to X-rays of high energy. Gamma is the most penetrating form of radiation. Isotope Emits Half-life Uranium-238 alpha 4.5 billion years residential uses. The Board finds, however, that the applicant can meet this criterion rou' con i ions of approve. establishing these conditions of approval, the Board recogn = t the majority o ronmental concerns pertain to dust and hazardous waste storage that occurred on the a portion of property located West of Lower Bridge Way. Therefore, separate conditions of approval are Imposed for 1) the area to the East of Lower Bridge Way (together with approximately 30 acres along the river west of Lower Bridge Way; and, 2)the area West of Lower Bridge Way, the latter requiring a Resolution of Intent to Rezone rather than a current rezoning of that section. çEa ) t Prior to final lat eporvteLfpr any residential subdivision, the applicant shall ob in ram the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) a "No Further Action"(NFA)determination or the equivalent for a residential use designation for the 160 acres. 2. Prior to final plat approval for any residential subdivision, the applicant shall obtain from the Department of Human Services (DHS) a determination of "no apparent public health hazard"for a residential use designation for the 160 acres. West Area. 1. Within five prior to final plat approval for any residential subdivision on e 410 acre a that is the subject of File No. ZC-08-1/PA-08-1, whichever a ea fifer,{)tie applicant shall obtain from DEQ an NFA determination,9r the e• • = :1 t• = residentia use • . = on or this 410 acre area. 2. ithin,1 . @ s or pnor o Ina p at approval or any rest•an to subdivision on the 410 acre.area that is the subject of File No..ZC-08-1/FAA-08-1, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall obtain from DHS a determination of "no apparent public health hazard"for a residential use designation for this 410 acre area. 3. During the pendency of this Resolution and continuing in conjunction with the DEQ VCP program and site development, the owner shall im lement the Q Q.,... approved Planting Plan dated May 20, 2008 x I H-6 and the DEQ approved Watering Monitoring Pl.- .a ;. T ay •, ''+ hibit PH-7) as the Dust Abatement Han for me site. 0117 Na4 (,0 6,etc— L A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and 1 the change is Consistent with the Plan's introductory statement and goals. FINDINGS: In previous County decisions, it has been held that comprehensive plan goals and policies do not constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial zone changes, but rather are implemented through the zoning ordinance, and therefore if the proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, it also will be consistent with the plan. The applicant has argued that the public interest is best served by taking the subject property out of mining use. Due to increased rural residential development in the area and decreased value and demand for diatomite, the applicant argues that diatomite mining is no longer 9 With regard to environrnental issues,the Board iacks the expertise to determine if the subject property is safe for residential use and will look to DEQ and DHS to provide this determination. ■ 20-08-1/PA-08-1 —BOCC Decision Page 31 of 38 Document No.2009-168 —. i 11 contaminants listed in Table 1 in Appendix B. This list of chemicals includes all of the contaminants known or suspected to have been in the hazardous waste stored on the site. EHAP compared the highest concentration of each contaminant found in the soil from both locations against ATSDR health-based comparison values for soil. These values assume daily exposure to contaminants over an entire lifetime.None of the contaminants exceeded ATSDR comparison values (See Appendix B Table 1), which means that the contaminants were not found at high enough levels to present a health risk. Based on these findings, EHAP concluded that contact with soil from the former hazardous waste storage areas poses no apparent public health hazard to surrounding residents under current land use conditions. i1 Radiological concerns Some of the hazardous materials historically stored at the mine site contained ra °logical materials, so EHAP reviewed radiological survey data collected in March 20 conducted by a third party contractor . '4Fti la ion re.•zngs were taken at 13 locati ons in 1--l _ and around the former hazardous waste storage areas including the lagoons and former barrel storage pad. None of the gamma radiation readings exceeded local background Vtir levels. In addition to surveys onsite,EHAP staff surveyed the yards of two private residences for gamma radiation levels where fill taken from the mine site had been used for landscaping. EHAP found no radiological readings above local background levels at either of the residences during this July 2, 2008 survey. EHAP concluded that no apparent public health hazard associated with historical radiological waste exists at the Lower Bridge Mine site. Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs) EHAP evaluated PCB concentrations in ten soil samples that were taken in co #c _mu of 2008[4] from around the two former onsite wer subs ions. Two out of the ten samplesraPCT concentrations above health-based screening values. Pacific Corp, removed the contaminated soil and took thirteen confirmatory soil samples[5].EHAP evaluated the thirteen confirmatory soil samples and determined that PCB concentrations no longer exceeded ATSDR's health-based soil screening values [5]. Given the localized nature and small area affected by PCB contamination prior to removal,it is unlikely that PCBs could have migrated offsite in sufficient quantities to affect the health of local residents in the past or under current land use conditions. EHAP concluded that soil around the former power substations on the site poses no apparent public health hazard to nearby residents. 1 Potential Groundwater Contamination Residents expressed concern chat hazardous wastes could contaminate groundwater under the site and migrate into domestic wells used by nearby residents. EHAP evaluated groundwater sampling data that was collected and analyzed in March 2008 by third party, state-certified contractors and laboratories(Appendix C Tables 2 and Table 3). The samples were collected from two aquifers(sampled via an irrigation well and a spring)at different depths under the site (one sample from each aquifer).Data in Tables 2 and 3 in Appendix C show the chemical and radionuclide concentrations from the deeper aquifer; 1 8 it+ 1 ,1 _____.0 ativ\___L_A- _______,_y_____/)v v,---)0 ' i a eatA'll-", near Terrebonne — Deschutes , 4,. ' .,..:.:' ''',.. 1k. ,,,,,,,,, ' ,, ',.''. tkr...' '''''i' . .4 i !„„. ..,. . . , „ , , ,A.,,..44. ,,, ,,, ,7,,,......,...,,,s. 4.- ...if,..., . ' st It ,4IA , it, ., . '• :,,•0 ,4 ,',Nd;' ''''' ',,,' ,.:':','* i ' fx,..,_'14.„ '.4 -- „ , „1,„4:,.. ., ,,,, ... ..,,,,r, . s. .41)&7. ,„1 4' " . , ,.,,,,,..., P IL,. i.... „. , • it ,. ;,;2.,. . „...., ,f., ,‘„imp,...,,,, ., . ...-4--...._...e, 4........ . . . 04, .... . ,,e ,,,,,0„.ir IL* 1 t , . ..z. .,. .r.::-. .-- . - , . , :' L." k .. ,. 1 ,10.'„ i ii ii 0 0.125 0.25 0.375 miles 1 i I • / 1 of 1 (1) ‘,., ' f-, (A -C___,S-i-- .'r-- fi-s 1 D . 4 r ■ ■ DECLINING REVIEW ,' If the BOCC decides that the Hearings Officer's decision shall be the final decision of the county, then the BOCC shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing may continue the 1 appeal as provided by law. The decision on the land use application becomes final upon the mailing of the BOCC's decision to decline review. DCC 22.32-035(B). In determining whether to hear an appeal,the BOCC may consider only 1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer; ;r. 2. The notice of appeal;and 3. Recommendations of Staff. DCC 22.32.035 (ID). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Reasons to hear: 1) There are a number of significant code interpretation issues. LUBA will be obligated to defer to BOCC's interpretations if they are at least plausible. The BOCC may want to reinforce or refute some or all of the Hearing Officer's findings/interpretations prior to LUBA review. However, staff notes that matters of state statute, e.g. EFU zone issues, are not matters to which the Board will be given deference by LUBA. a Reasons not o • D V)U ° r �S" ' MINw.- - �I. 1) CDD Staff and Legal believes the hearings officer decision is well reasoned and well written and could be supported as-is on appeal. 2) The applicant may challenge the denial at LUBA as a remedy to the Hearing Officer's denial. il he H_: i••: cu. =r found that . .. . • • 4., ... . r e ad'aoent fo ,... 04 elrf • •r a subdivision that the ........„)k-% 1, .du,�,,,,,,... , record rloel;.;.-:�:not pport a findin• that blowin• I •u- •oes not and will not presenia health ,_: .r• to ture PUD residents --or i a it is east• = o assure no alth hazard `,•m blowin• DE dust will occur in the future through impositlon of conditions of prova. 1..•. 1-cisin, pp. 51-52) Moreover, the hearings Tound, ; ..that under Rhyne (Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442 (1992)), [she does] not have the option of deferring findings of compliance with the "suitability' conditional use approval criterion to final plat approval as suggested by the applicant. That is because final plat approval is not required to, and does { not, provide public notice or hearing."(H-O. Decision, p.49) 4) Staff and Legal notified the applicant in a pre-application meeting that this proposal did not appear to comply with Deschutes County Code and might be denied by the Hearings Officer. The applicant was advised that the following preliminary actions would significantly improve the likelihood of approval: File Nos.247-15-000194-CU,247-15-000195-TP(247-15-000521-A) Page 4 of 5 r :`!! !' d2o� NupQ � °rte v J CD. co c �'� 4 J�yry] 7_ yf�� ,yj m nr 1�. W Fo iyry� Vy �w lEiti {u - � � as � � ;g ill " 1E! IP ttailaiiajE 4—, Ca- i 132.11f, d�aappp �.,pp /��'�f /� ) -Cj V R !p p1 t F+ ° mi - 2 I I I:: 'sgl' .1, c— " --3 I:: ell2Xeg Agwt '- il - ' - '`'. in g �gp , i p 1 6 m,�3m egg ' i PIA o a E00 8122: :lid .. 4 B >° Weill 21 i l' i- 8 im•z cc in i.. _ t .. Oa a -E10.1- -s.6 : - 1 -_ ,.i.� . . ILL . w ,� , 10_,m. 2- ocm aE -02118 OC1- `vx-715 .S. E'17,=- =EE -o a) -ti ..- -0. g v g'E 1 — _ earda _ • .2 I � uEo' la 2`5V rs .s1 - 'Till :IR 2p, i UN: 0 gto giv ° Pao ❑ Lam'q vs - Wm I :11 cl . e ra a) 0_ a.9. 2.gc u g8 . , 10.4 ", 15 g 1 figilitiN Efie! c T--6 -s :g d 1 = 4 c beirt- E ° cum) cu= _s9 z r AM L2 cd3 -g. s .„.„„ . z,.. ,. R:s.0-4 B _ • co ia w 1 g t I =2 Lit: .-.- .i0 ' -,,, - 1-..-i, liaj 8 cu rit - 0. -a -5 , ''''''''' ' - ' ra CM w O C .E E. d , , 1 ,1 ) �.. ..'Lvu)L 1cr -+ L. web I 1) LU ll --- z 5,. k Phase One Environmental Site AsseSxnc 10000 and 70420 NW Bridge Road C1 tl�Gt Terrebonne,Oregon ... ,- �.- Mike Renz, DEQ's Eastern.Region ISpills Program. Bend office (541/388-6146, x231) was . interviewed via telephone onlApril 9.20t17. The interview is summarized a : •,Mr.Renz has no file information or recollection of a PCB release or cleanup at the site, • - however,the utility companies do not always work with the DEQ. • ,Mr. Benz recalls that waste was stored at that site,•and thinks Chem Nuclear was - • ,involved. _ • Contact Jeff Ingalls,DEQ,regarding the site. . . Jeff Ingalls, DEQ's Eastern Region Hazardous Waste Program, Bend office (541/388-6146, - i • x238)was interviewed via telephone on April 11,2007 and in person on April 12,2007. The interview is summarized as: • /Mr.Ingalls'Me for this site cannot be fo,wid: • • • The site was visited in 2006 and a warning letter was issued_dating that the site owners - needed to clean up.the solid waste. This was the first time Mr. Ingalls had been on this • site He visited the eastern portion of the site and did not observe any problems. • Mr: Ingalls provided a copy of his site investigation report (April 26, 2006), a Pre- - Pnfomement Notice (dated May 8, 2006) and cover letter, and a followup letter (dated • .November l er 21, 2006): These documents were obtained f om Mr. Ingalls electronic files since the hard copy file could not be found(reproduced in Appendix G of this report). . - • One of the issues was an e. illegal.land disposal site;net a pit,the material was piled on the surface. The material has snbsequently been taken to Knott Landfill. • S.A. Moore's response(which is in the missing file)was to step'the illegal burning, and to cleanup,and provide disposal receipts for,the yards ofuction debris. t • The sod stockpiled onsite is not'allowed per-current Oregon regulations, since it originated offsite. . . . • According to Mr Ingalls, the DEQ decided not to puce enforcement at this site since, . the site owner had agreed to clean up the problem (November 21, 2006 letter). Per the letter"At this time the Department is taking no further action on+ 'vio fin c•asociated K r with my April 27, 2006 inspection. However, please be advised that a repeat of these . • violations may result in another referral for formal enforcement,including the assessment of a civil penalty." (, 'er Mr. I. : is the November 21 2111! letter is not a "clean bill of health" fro.... ' • . • • . a separate day in May, 2006, Mr. Ingalls walked through the old mill buildings and nearby areas with Mr.Frank Messina,DEQ. Observed asbestos sheet board and building debris. • Frank Messina. DEQ's Eastern Region Air Quality Program, Bend office (541/388-6146, x226)was interviewed via telephone on April 10,2007 and in person on April 12,2007. The interview is summarized as: • • \ � ,, : concern is dust 1_:_ ' , , .J , eK,,n ' ., ..'.w .,.,,, ,,• e .0., phi . , . --1 fl 1 ,.... —... ._ _. _.� . Messina 3 � y o ii • .a ,r:, ., . ,n '.o ., , : the DEC)sent to • r a an me .ed in Appendix G). The letter requested a meeting between DEQ and Mr.Nolan to address - the dust issues. As of April 12,2007,Mr.Nolan had not yet contacted Mr.Messina to set ' up the meetm ��I , , ,• , ,,•I . ;,;.. Report Date May 2007 PBS .., Project#:80319.000 • - of vlrornmental Quality Via. .t ■ • .i l.+ IV ., to , ��a�-4 A SECTION M ( Imes: Zr et • Tine: roc" Call r< •. L. Title: Company: Locat.lon:. :D I .• Pha Moo: 0g (P 1 ••n RE: Snk A4 Va(L2./ 1%1 4 . immtpiaLgaili I[) ' , IL w. . qxn iie.'itjAkii r i'11 y f r wj :4nle1;X ., I:i !r. ��i. y , • ._Api 4". 4, .,- Iry ) ' . 4 , . .. -.+. -gip. -cfi ._ . .. . Al t� •• .4.0,,, 4 .•'.1.. '•' . :31'71 N !Y D. .1. , c ) - . C.-S.1 1 t!� ,5-) . • • _ .... , ` . . -1r - r .i. • • r, ■• [i) .._.-..-a f11 .01 4 . -. ...1� .I S. a.,I .) , •' 'J . • • • Laileasitier D EQ/WQ-1 0 1-2/84 • . , ,1i - EXHIBIT C 1 1. Page 206 of 209 Phase One Envir l:mental Site Assessment 10000 and 70420 NW Lower Bridge Road Tenebonne,Oregon - , • Scott Moore started SA Moore in 2002. His company has operated on both sides of , NW Lower Bridge Way. Prior to that,his dad operated on the east side of NW Lower • Bridge Way. His dad's lease began in approximately 1988. Prior to that, Mr. Scott Moore had been onsite from time to time since the mid-1970s. . • • • Mr. Scott Moore•was involved in the cleanup on the east side. • Scrap iron from old crane booms-were formerly located on•the eastern portion of the - site, in the level open area to the southeast. A fine came in with a mobile shear, cut i up.the scrap iron and loaded it out. . . • • An old shack that was formerly an'aluminum van body was located in the southwest , part of the eastern portion of the subject property. if ' . :11 I .,,* . .,. : •���, -: •located on the • ,1 • s 1 property Mr. Scott Moore • ieved the plant c a som s '8 'etweeii 1986 and 1988. • • The scalehouse was never-used by either of the Moore operations. It belonged to • Mad-Oregon Crushing/Ready Mix,owned by Bob Joluinie.. • • •• tt , Mr. oo Dora has purchased �, � on the 'on • } S 1K ,. '� eastern of { the subiect•p pperty. Quality of a ,a is a ..caent for use in concrete and is . • mainly-used as riding arena sand. He occasionally loads and hauls sand from here, } ; • using the fivnt loader that remains onsite. - . . • • Mr. Scott Moore stated that the Moore operations were restricted to the western part • of the site(north and west of NW Lower Bridge Way). ••• • Operations on•the western portion of the site included screening and crushing. The equipment was set up near where the box-trailer is currently. Material was not - stockpiled onsite but was sold as it was produced;'/,"minus and fill were prodtiiced. 4 • No fuel tanks were used onsite in association with his operations. All of his pickups . contained fuel tanks that were used fo.fuel onsite equipment. Oil and grease was kept • • . - -locked up. • •' A long time ago, he cleaned up a bunch of iron from some sitar contractors, but ' ,.didn't get it all and needs too back and finish removing the remaining steel. • • The large brush pile near the-office trailer is planned to be ground up, mixed with . soil, and used to create mulch. The brush has been onsite for about 1 %s years, and • • • needs to dry more before it can be ground. - 7.A Interviews with Local Government Officials Dan Crouse, DEQ's Eastern Region Site Assessment Section. The Dalles office (541/298- 7255, x31) was interviewed via telephone on April 12, 2007. The interview is summarized •as: • Dick Nichols had,previously contacted Mr. Crouse and Assitrifalajograitojaim, ••fib .; • "Site pri a uahon for further action", stated in the online SCSI report, means that • i Mr. Crouse entered the NFA into the DEQ's system, not that any future action is ' currently planned. •- • Mr. Crouse has stopped by the site and taken a few photos since the NFA was filed. , • ;i Report Date: May 2007 • r, Project#:80319.000 in 84, pi: Phase One Eovuanmental Site Assessment 10000 and 70420 NW Lower•Bridge Road Terrebonne,Oregon • r-, cleanup.,-.Norm We and is Mr,Nolan's cousin, apd is not familiar with site operations, including the holding pond cleanup. •• According to Mr. Nolan, Rex Barber was president of DVF. Wade West and Charlie Moon were also officers. All are deceased. Wade West spearheaded getting the waste disposal deal started,.and oversaw installation of the four holding ponds. The tr aterial in the drums (oversize drums) was primarily casting sand from.Precision Castparts in • . Portland. The drums were stored onsite south of the holding ponds; Mr. Nolan never • witnessed anything going into the ponds. agini; , r -t t t . A t i A A f • el :r t r. was A .r .Bill Young was t A . t o the • � • "� M .;1r,�i, i�iln' ptr;, .11r-�,� 1 a ' A r"�t A r r C, ant was mvo r A • r A a A. Drums were moved 44 r r ' the summer, fall, and winter; Whiting Trucking trans ! '` checked with a. .4 counter ! ci :r,i. Olt II: �1• 1:,14,1,...1 . rr�t AA ;r. i1■1 A iiru 'r A "too hi A" of a el • a "�r! t .��t / ' r t V '!! tit',,,: NQ �. biro' t , � , �..y •�ly'�n. a J a Y 1 t r. H u,.r t He "or (r• 11 IP $ N /A e rl YYr t f°yVu..e!i _ .fti1 aOn Castparts. Precision•Castparts paid for the cleanup. Alter the drums were moved, the DEQ brought a drill onsite and took sauaples. The s :s - ;t :r :t a letter sa 't • th • the cleanup. • The property-owner questionnaire response indicated that the power"company removed • transformar(s) from the property and cleaned up the site Mr. Riatenschneider stated ' that large transformers were removed in the early 1980s by PP&L and recalled that PCBs )( i-.. _ were reportedly present The transformers were located on the level area north of the processing building. He has no records of the cleanup. • • In response to the User Questionnaire question #5, regarding any known environmental . cleanups, the response was."Yes. All trash drums tines _4}'g,iron and other debris was(sic)removed and clean bill of hes.1t17 i sued by Q inr 204 "__ • • Mr. Nolan has received the recent letter from Frank Messina, DEQ, regarding dust control issues at the site He recalls that seeding with red clover and native grass was done after he purchased the site to keep the dust down. Mr. Moore has worked on keeping the dust down as well. • 7.2 Interview with Previous Owner(s) • Based on information obtained from Mr.Nolan and Mr.Riemenschneider,all knowledgeable ' - previous property owners associated with Deschutes Valley Farms have since passed away, hence no previous owners were interviewed ider owned the •i., u tnor to its bern! • a �:. t , _.. • 4 ., Fit �f. • 73 Interviews with Site Manager,Occupants or Employees Scott Moore was interviewed on April 11, 2007 via telephone (541/548-4525). The • interview is summarized as follows: • Report Date: May 2007 ton C Project X:80319.000 \ ( " i tk ii A 5913 February 19, 1976 50148 o.411i,, „,000, III 01 4 tittI NIu I a.,. Mr. Rex T. Barber. Vice President Deschutes Valley Sanitation, Inc. P. 0. Box 68 Terrebonne, Oregon 97760 Dear Mr. Barber: With this reply to your letter of February 4, 1976 we are en- closing a copy of the memorandum report dated February 9, 1976 covering the inspection of the Deschutes Valley Sanitation. Int. Liquid waste disposal site which was conducted on January 22. 1976 by Fred G. Lissner of the State Engineer's office and Dr. Robert C. Paeth of DEQ. The report, prepared by Mr. Lissner and concurred with by Dr. Paeth, concludes that the , • •,.• I 9- - • • •le for 1i• • P. because o 4.1;.- > .1I ., . or. �•i•l iliti t». ;ns ∎o recommen•s . . t. an• no u e. . wote—dtsgusal • �............X11gIMN(NGXkI, We are extremely concerned about the fact that your dompany failed . - to inform us of the actual conditions which exist at the site of the completed lagoons. In your letter of February 4, 1976 you make no re- i'í ference to and give no explanation for , r• - m ..- • a. - • • Fr= facts concernin• the lack of ad •uat • - M►,�•� ;rt l�'•-�!ttXCe• • s neath • ' • „ti , IU. uluu 400,4lu Nm.a.owdl o In view of the above we have no alternative but to request that further acceptance • d • •• • • • . • t i. • ••• I be terminated immediately. .j(R4) Mr. Rex T. Barber, Vice President February 19, 1976 Page 2 7) After you have had an opportunity to review the report of Fred Lissner` -) and Dr. Paeth we will be willing to confer with you at your convenience regarding what steps right be possible to rectify this situation. In the meantime, if there are questions regarding mat ter please contact t 7) the Solid Waste Management Section in Portland at 229-5913. Sincerely, 2 LOREN KRAMER Director 7) KHS:am 7) Enc. (1) cc: Central Regional Office cc: Century West Engineering Corporation cc: Senator Jernstead cc: Senator Fred W. Heard cc: Representative Sam Johnson- cc: Representative Jack Sumner ) ) ) • ) ) ) ) ) • David Jenkins August 11, 2009 P.O. Box 85 Terrebonne, OR 97760-0085 Re: Deschutes Valley Sanitation Site Dear Mr Jenkins I want to tank you for your informative letter of August 6,2009 and the documents you enclosed They disclosed a lot of information about the site that I was not aware. Wheal I visited the site in 1983, it was remote and I do not remember seeing any residences in the area. I'm not qualified to comment on the air transport of hazardous materials. I do have some questions on the possibiliy of ground water pollution. If the site is now near or under a residential area, what is the source of their water supply?Are there any wells in the area? Has any ground water pollution been detected? It was unknown in 1983 whether there was a perched ground water aquifer beneath the site. With a substantial residential development in the area and with Found disposal of their liquid waste,there would be the possibility that a perched er could develope. Asbestos would not be a concern as�f doesn't migrate m ,� ope €ral the soil, but residual PCBs and other organic chemicals in the soil might be transported downward with the septic tank of uent an someday reach the underlying regional aquifer which discharges to the Deschutes River. I would think a ground water monitoring program should be considered. The regional water table is at a great depth and attempting to monitor it would be very difficult. Some shallow wells however, to determine whether a perched aquifer exists or develops in the area,would be more reasonable. I'm sending you an old report for your library. It was prepared in 1968 about the use of drain wells for waste disposal. The appendix contains some well logs and chemical analyses that gives a general picture of the geology and ground water quality of the Redmond-Terrebonne area. With my best regar • : �J Jack E. Sceva f r-. JESMKS@aol.com LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE LAVA TERRANE OF CENTRAL OREGON Prepared by Jack E. Sceva Technical Projects Branch Report No. FR-4 U. S. Department of the Interior Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Northwest Region Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory Corvallis, Oregon May 1968 • FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATIO 6.4, 1' r i.siajt6 LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE LAVA TERRANE OF CENTRAL OREGON 41:‘"tg f.'47a " g • t errt. "fr . . e.--44' • . ' . U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION NORTHWEST REGION 4011171._t_41 APRIL 1968 _ , , . , , • ••,•••! , , 4, i •.: , . . . ., . • • • . - . •• 1 - :: ••••I)H: .•1.1 '.: . ,-.1;.....1,, ••••!: ,,.-I• •''''''''•'''''''''': V.-• ! I . - „ ' -4', ' ..,-. 1 - • . . . I. .......,,-.r.,tt,70, . r,„,,-ti.....,::..de r :.-4',' (":. ,)4.•• ,.: ' - . • it: 3 -Sig g ji 7 6 11.E', • ! - •r • 4. . • 14's ! . , .4 • ..-,.. , ,1 ,! ' '' ' • 18 0'-§- i:.• - • •' ...--..,•,.., ',.,,,.,.- . „, H-1 5c.47,1,_...._:.----- 1-41; 'GI - "I 'd tl irc .8 '.1 . i • .., .e ,.•8-" "- . • . ! - : 44, t .1, , • . - Ds. ... is . ., .. :E.a. :., . .! ic. . -, ' '''''''• ..-Fa : . i,•-:''LL. • 4.i" ,'••••,/ ° •‘ . ,,,, -,-, • a 41 a,t., ...!:41i. . : ! imi .- -...• .• g'• •:, „.,1 .• E g 1 F, - La,g ..' Ig''F.., •i .it 10 i , A.' '2',I • • . . . .• ,i,.:-,',' , , . 4.4;46:C1 M . V : In I ' '25./71.%..2'S't li"..11 0 . I II', 4 •:',.. .• •" .,, •' .g ...i .7..1 • ••• ' .-.;;.',' '•::, di- a e.%;•'t idle.", 1; -f.6 , r..• .. ., ;•'ins I .;:cil IIII :il . •-0 . :: •-----'•--...,-: -r■•,:,., •, • . s, . ..I .,, • .„.T . 114 . . co pal -Fil, pitgo 1- -g . : i.,,,.. .,: , .... .,.. u) , , , ,,,„,r , . .,. • too*. •' , '"-§-*: - ,g Tp171 ii... g i• ' ' . ,... \i-i.. ",,:': .• ! ! • i - - :.. pi.. r.,,,.. 7 . . .P - -,' 'e: •`' pos 6.■ ' --', tiP cc. - -- 5 .'"i' 1 1.1':' I ''' '01 :• : offiv4 •/„.........:.11•,..,...,:,;....,.-.4:i,'-.7:.;;',.'': ,'' :ti,".:.',:," ! .1,T2. '.' ile'lic•.a It-1 ,•-p,-.i '..• .f••••'A'°..t ' '1°'Al 2,'I'II.• : •.. ' i‘ • , '0' ,,' / 1• °4 •-k:7,1 • -EII L !,• .:,9i,!,1 1 1.•• li-...-1 •‘; ,, • ••,, ",:,i••• , '1 ' i . ' tw ‘• . ' ... .'i-.: • '' •';' . -,-,z)- -.'-' • . ' ...... • • . _.... .1 , • . - - . • si •::::‘, ,k•,i : E -. :,,i'.••:-.;..`;"•P ,. • .t .-- Ta,r, 0_ ;p .1. 411.,- , ,til • ,. .!...„- \• I'. . .2 ' . . • .'.:,21,,i.,,,';',,'.• •,_.-t - .,i• ,.- ro az 7, 46 3' 11 .24 vilr I el l• • '•• 4 ..•; I "2 '•••• .4,''• . : ,1 , ' ' 7•1::-IiI•s'i,-:-••II. • .7. , „ i. . • • • . ', Ei '. A; ' 11-I ":0•11;4 I r '.' : .-0'• • ,-.... . 1 . . -... ,-•;•. ,I4 , ..-....-i•°•II ' '• .' ' -••'-'' J '; 4'v•.: 1 • . -. • ;-!' 1 : . '. • t.''',. • . i ' 00 •,',I.I.!,?'-•,:if..' ''''''''''-----717.7 "----- ''' ' ' 7.4 IG t''. Ii.. . 1I.P'31, l'•' .. • .4 ..-•.'Ief".:i 1. P ',.i ,a. .!' '• ..- "c•.. ., ' .i ..'. -,, ' .' „... .1,'`, .■.,/\! '' .71 ' •' ; •• •:;;;3' ,: , •,..1.2 ; -..4 „.!:.7.-..11.:pR4A,;‘-i .•• ,l'i .. -.f...f ...„-, • '.-;•$;:•'•§..."1" ;!:-,-1 -; - 1-.1 ; ..', : e• ..• Al .,-,...,-../4, •-,....4.. ,„ -,,,-- <,: .4'1.--.4`-c• g;i1 11,:".-I- w! in.• . 11 ',!1'.."- -. I ' 1-4. . . ' • • ..,-.r=•••.:7,-!•:' '',.....,'••: ;'....-...;II t t" .11-m,-Ili . , .• • .,. .. • .!!! A - • g ;- „As ..7.',.•--':-. .!,'7!,, ! ..• .6 „.-..1),10 ": '‘'-=."' -.,?,: . I.1:1. • ::,...:''.. '1-i t IA ••••' ' --t.• ... ', --.. . . ,,Iii 1 ••■•' ''L --•• 1 .i •z. • • ',.. 4. - -:' . ... (17!;.,', ,. R.7',•.•••...,.-a..:- 77 ... -."'•'"?a .: '::- ".. ;,. 1 '- .=A •-: '•1 • ' ••• • . . •• .' . ,,, 4..,, , „ . ,-,. • .. CU . '.'.,`,,,:::r..-•.' k:, I... .1 r.. .I. ,• ''. pa : . .„- . ,' -:!... '.',..'::i ft` :'.•''' -'.•,.,-• -1,...,"1,-- t.'.. tr.. -.'1,7•.4_.., - -•-i ' • ,,,,, .-- :. •• ..'s 42■1.,..,!,..:n.' • . . '' ''.,•-• :444 ' ,.t. ',•••••' ... . i • ....•' . .,-..VI 1-; •• gr.;- ,,. . . :-4 7..y.,-,-.,,?;:.:N,,,.:-.-.- :::, ; •.- .,;._ .2'•‘...-'"•:; g - .t'A, I . . . •„',,,,, --., L ...IOW ... . •••• ..••::-_,::,:,,„'r4,•.-,,,' ' • vi,''''.' , ' '' - •;.1.--- :, . !)!.. §. 4 I,: • •iii..'•_.I.: e '''',•:, •_. . •- .L., . ..- • ' - • •00 . : • , •-■-•'0 f!: '''..,=-,7-',, %- -' - 1., ;'?•' i• -'g •' • - . • , ' •L''5.- '‘" , ,... ....,.. , ., ,, . ..a .:: 1- • ;4,-. m • _13: ' .. - i.- .1 •:„:' ''' ''''''''''A"-•'' A.','-' - - I,. '-= ' -• ,'. .1 • - .-1:: 1 ,., 4.- I. ,„,", .;.... . . . . ' -,, 't',,,,,-,••-•••• .4:7?-e: ,•.:•1('. •-.447t ". .7•;',11..;:',. 17, -f--- 1 • ' • -- -.. 1-7 '',! . .. _. _ . •:,•;•-!, !..--:;'; ,'..',., ',0,*,,,,,„.• •-.41;•,),,-,'''.1• 1. , • 1 I,...• i.":" 1 -• - ' 4. I:1 '''' ''''' e ! ,,1% , -'.,.• A,' ! _' •'•- ',4''!!-',.i:- .. ,1 • ... 1!.....z.; '',•!: t, v-:•-• -. ' •. • !--- i z •.•. . .•,. - ..- -,,,,.: 1... it- 4...- ,--. -!4•••.g, -.. ,i _ . 1„.4i „,',:' ' ..s. ,c.,.. . ' ,,.,2./. , :•: !.!!. ?,.,.. :1 • ..- ,, ,,, '.': . . . ,-,, -- -!..-A.g.--• -IF , '''. 11 ' ' ii •• ..',.,'..',',.'•. .• .•i,:1 ..:.-•. '.-.• .•. .'--I- LCEI.''',"'!. 1-i'..:.'•-•-';----....:'-4;•.4-i'-1;,-7.''.77 '. i,.!,iA'',.`.-:I'-!,.'.','..'..•.0-•,..41g3.-'.1 3,1.,*1i-'7.:.•'Ir.Z)P,s It,P,:';t,: ',•I;l:,k'1f";,'1iC4,""i..l igl"v1.11;1I..;;I•:•:. I•1 -.''.1., a.-•■!. i 4 IW ' , X....-. -!1I•-i I','•' , • ' ,•• . .. • '',.. ••',•,..••••.'.'1.•-ir.7. (.''t. . ',..''''..•',! ;'...'_ I r, - , :=• • I,-•- -IT , .. •...1°.I .I .. . •II-,,,?! . • .. - 'a• ..., '-• •I.•IQ' I":., . '.. , - I:*.j" ' '. :`'"'I,-, ., a;•4• ..'42''''''.. •• A ‘k-"4 . t E. P‘I .: l':-. i .C , 11: :'' ' . 1 • -. z' 4g.4'1'. 143-',1- -41 ra ze alf 5- : ..,.:.!.. 1..g.: tf 13,21 •-' i• ! i -?''''.. ,_ , • . ,. , . .-, 210 t,..e -,..7.:11..7.11-• -11.1R a .5.,,.2;71, -!g ; r . .a.',',.. , , i' 1.71,12 .1 a.d.,-,t ..3!3.21: ii.-,77. .15.,- ‘,-.si J1.11'111 .1.14 4-- = ••Y''' 'I': •11.1 1 41 'a••1 ; ••' •' •••• Lom '.. e) _-,, T..- tit fet-l',.ig; -'e..-.11.0, ilig...31ali,-.2 gar. : .A.re. . ..•• - -:,;.7.: ; •,.• -fr..,t. .. ,• '. •,..,,,,-.• - 2.1.,..2-6-1.- -,,....2,..A.0.- 5 wzi +.iu• I;1M -,,AVI•,•$._.,:Iii !Li,: •,.1 grt F., - 1. t •• •\s.....) • '. . _a_m. - --.- ,m Is 6.S a Ate z i . g 2.§..a.- . 3 a. . . . 1.,. 1113.,;,,,,,._•, 7,.. §,v ,:,.. i mr.■• •?2 '''',7 _ -21,-,§Z pi, p-1,2aid sig .,--a.:,_,1 ...1 i gg •.s,- .-• 6: : • 47 •II: • ali' I I I' 4 , • • ' . ' ' '. ' . •U) 1 1/;■. • 11 -11.,"-Z°11,.. lig '2:..--m!liz-, i.1 •g .11 '. ,-j-,.t.', 'k•1-- ' 1. '' , it, ,: . . •,.. ... . . .,pise. ;II g :1;11 •-c-ii-.--,1.3 ,;.2111.11-s;pi.,..m3 i Litt-01'01.. ] !., 1-1110?•: .t,.• IR.,1 :, • ,,!. 11, 414.! ..,a• : r' • . , • .ft,oi, .,....g. .1! -;:: . li,v;Ni-1,41Kiiiii:k;i, t!!t8s.A. 01.[c...11, -_-'v ili:„ .1 ,; !' .;,i 1 ' . , .. 4:0 . , ., ivg 1.4 .LEICEPpt§i.-. ig•gg:- r' 142'12' Eli- ,:, i A;'• • iri, • 1 .77"')...' .7 I _.; .., •', • liv ! a.:.4 .ZU3T. ,..a.CCAg •-0. -a ,,,,,i... ,,... . •! _ . ' -4,5t.Vt ig• 112.11.11•F' .114Att-7•-, ,zal,g ' e'•,, - - :..: , ':;f1.,, 2 , 11-1E11 ! . *',I.. Ha: , L . 5 ii 1 ••' t't. ..,3:4! r; a glf.,11- . Sz , "Ii:::1‘4.er404111 "1-K • ' .„1.h':,-11:7%1-.. e1,1 [ °-;:,. 0:'•:. '1° ' -1-11.'" 'Oil AO= • • c 0 . A z.i ..,i.14 al:a El gir.,.- ,e=1-;.' ''tT?':=,,Is'' -.,..4:.F.. i Si..:7; 1 -.!1-s1.;.ii.:.,z1 .1-! -7-1 '„ .• . , • ,'. ..._ .. stZA! +-. `..:1=-gls 514.7sv.:;.11 .1”-itI-13..t. 115.. 112 #1; it I ''..",-.1'7g1 : ..,!.; •: 0 2§g2:21 2'5, -t,==E.1.. 1 .15... .e -4F•..112! -- ' "'"' ' 1,7,11...;- ,i/ , UY ' ' 11.■ C 441:1:1? 12 0:11 -tz. 4.-ag ,..r.gil- il -- i. -- •=1 • ', -1,:.7'. -r.t '' .,_ • . , , : a) ILE t E ".9. 131 ili";11.t.;iiii. 61"4- '11121:t',-1; ED I ;31- ' i•-•- =V ' :'•,:. ) ='" CO lit2-14••.''. Vilyai-='-i- 0 o'il',11 - a 'ffl• =•.--4.. -'• s'e,- .. a 1 r. .' , i "- .' -., • .. - i;-° - . R.. .0 ' Immi:eigfl A....ii. -1.;ti. -.... f-'V 7 P' 7 P-,•. :.'f, , -:'. -,•-■"' . • 11 . : 'IL' .1 .1• . - • ' 1 - ,. . Z , = z 0 ''7;;4' ' C)) p ••, .. , ._.. 1. , . . . • - ' ' - • - -' -.H. ' 'i '' . ;il i 1 i I . I H :-I• "• -' ' .':' i - ' '' .:-' - • ...: . ' - 1 • ' DECLINING REVIEW I If the BOCC decides that the Hearings Officer's decision shall be the final decision of the / county, then the BOCC shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing may continue the appeal as provided by law. The decision on the land use application becomes final upon the mailing of the BOCC's decision to decline review. DCC 22.32.035(B). In determining whether to hear an appeal,the BOCC may consider only: 1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer; 2. The notice of appeal; and 3. Recommendations of Staff. DCC 22.32.035(D). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Reasons to hear: 1) There are a number of significant code interpretation issues. LUBA will be obligated to defer to BOCC's interpretations if they are at least plausible. The BOCC may want to reinforce or refute some or all of the Hearing Officer's findings/interpretations prior to LUBA review. However, staff notes that matters of state statute, e.g. EFU zone issues, are not matters to which the Board will be given deference by LUBA. Reasons not • 1) CDD Staff and Legal believes the hearings officer decision is well reasoned and well written and could be supported as-is on appeal. 2) The applicant may challenge the denial at LUBA as a remedy to the Hearing Officer's denial. he H z i.i•= • i :r found that . .. • - •: • .. e ad acent fo a _ •.f 1! 'r" •. •': 5 : ', , ,t • ;,„,� ,.. • -- . ,• or a subdivision and that the fe , ... t upport a finding that blowing r sus •oes noUandwill not present a health r• o uture PUD residents -- or at it is easib e o assure no ealth hazard •m blowing DE dust will occur in the future throu!h im•osltion ofconditions-of •prova. 1'.s. Decision, pp. 1-52) Moreover, the hea ngs • 'ice ound, ..mat under Rhyne (Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442 (1992)), [she does] not have the option of deferring findings of compliance with the "suitability" conditional use approval criterion to final plat approval as suggested by the applicant. That is because final plat approval is not required to, and does not, provide public notice or hearing." (H.O. Decision, p.49) 4) Staff and Legal notified the applicant in a pre-application meeting that this proposal did not appear to comply with Deschutes County Code and might be denied by the Hearings Officer. The applicant was advised that the following preliminary actions would significantly improve the likelihood of approval: File Nos.247-154000194-CUJ,247-15-000195-TP(247-15-000521-A) Page 4 of 5 fbirt , , 4 A./ `6. . f !� " V ► 13 • , ,1 b. a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially to the course of the Deschutes River; c. all private road information, reservations, and restrictions; and. d. the location of all utility easements. 19. The applicant/owner shall record the PUD's covenants, conditions and restriction with the Deschutes County Clerk. ,PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION GRADING CONSTRUCTIiON Off`IMPROVEMENTS 20 Is f ,. n a- , x a ° a ,, Il 'I:,, �11 �� AA�r..l�il:`k 44� „�.i dLw., �.pJ.«i�r:'.i:.. �. II,I .A,., ^® ♦ *9� v rrr"I ; S �1 w ♦,i to`. '' ,s ♦,� n e I in ,ir, n� ,, :: on SM a 401 and the s�, 'ice L, in-an-amount ' identified l by the '1hC applicant and approved by the board, prior to grading or construction of any 'lnprovements on the subject property,The bond shall be redeemable by the county if ''!'', ,ki the,applicant fails to complete the DE remediation identified as necessary for SM Site j� , i 461 and the subject property by the JUne 22,2015 Wallace•Group report. S, 21 Each dwelling shall receive scenic waterway approval from the Oregon Parks and Recreation De artm . yk milt 5 {La- 22. Each dwelling shall receive LM site plan approval from Deschutes County. 23. Each dwelling shall receive SMIA site plan approval from Deschutes County. WITH CONSTRUCTION OF DWELLINGS OR OTHER STRUCTURES: 24. All dwellings shall satisfy all applicable lot coverage and building height limitations, including no lot coverage in excess of thirty (30) percent of the total lot area, and no building or structure exceeding 30 feet in height. 25. All dwellings shall be constructed of fire resistant materials. -__ 26. All structures shall be set back at least 100 feet from the OHWM of the Deschutes River and at least 50 feet from any rimrock. 27. All dwellings shall be constructed consistent with all grading and fill requirements in Section 17.36.230 of the Deschutes County Code. 28. All structures shall be finished in muted earth tones that blend with and reduce contrast with the surrounding vegetation and landscape of the building site. 29. Except as necessary for construction of access roads, building pads, septic drainfields, public utility easements, parking areas, etc., all existing tree and shrub cover screening any structure from the Deschutes River shall be retained. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation. 30. Subject to applicable rimrock setback requirements or rimrock setback exception standards in Section 18.84.090(E) of the Deschutes County Code, all structures shall be File Nos. 247-15-000194-CU/195-TP Lower Bridge Page 99 of 101 • \ . STATE OF OREGON INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: File DATE: September 9, 1980 r.6 ._ . : • FROM: Paul P. Lawson : Terrebonne. SUBJECT T e onne Di,atomaceoue earth depoezt:a This site has figured in newspaper articles and I have had two telephone - calls from Lois Raney. Ms. Raney claims to be affiliated with Northwest Diatomite.and indicates that they presently have a lease on this site from the Deschutes Valley. Farms who she says now own the site. She claims that ! unknown individuals have and•are removing the. stookpiled diatomite from the site. I drove around the portion of the site which'is bordered by roads. I ' noted one area where a rubber-tired endloader, is presently sitting where obviously material has recently been removed fromtAteide or exterior escarpment. Inquiry at the nearby Mid-Oregon Ready Mix plant indicates that it is the county • which is removing material: from this site for road topping. The response at' . . the Reedy Mix site relative to removal of diatomite from the site was evasive but- to the effect that individuals sometime get a truckload for lining pools • or ponds. They claimed not to know anyone by name. They el.eo claimed that less than 100 cubic yards per year had been removed. I then went to the site and stopped at the former offices of the Great • • Lakes Mining Company which had formerly marketed the material as $tcalite. Fere I met and talked to Mike Sellard'•who apparently has leased these buildi.nja i and who is constructing a dryer for pumice. Mr. Sellars claims that there i „ - ' no extractive activity whatsoever on the-property. He is removing or extrac.ng small amounts of pumice across the road from the'headquarters area. S® a' ' his aCtivities are below the tbreehad:d Level of our lam' I did not ask him concerning the removal of the diatomite as, at that time I had not seen the etookpiles and when I returned he was not available. After talking with him I went on through the area and explored all of that area which could be reached by road. On passing the stockpile it was apparent that there has been some removal and some of it appears to have been recent although there is no equipment there at the moment. A large area has been mined and perhap • 20 acres has been partially mined and -appears to still have reserves of diatomite. In addition ainoe I do not know the exact extent of the propert ..,, there may be some further reserves. Ae figg to 1W. Mamma there ia,oife area that-.at one-tiros ',air- ,4,, d. at o �, idea. a that .upon -tihl..i�ng... e , . . ' , , : " s ;"'7 tie • material would then be kteeeeked far the coppers t ie teat.lam mbar. entS • site is-located and I did not see'it. The site should be periodically checkdd for further activity. This site ie reached by road which has a sign indicating the .Crooked • River Ranch at its junction with Highway 97 between Madras, Terrebonne, and Redmond. This point is just north of Terrebonne, perhaps a quarter of a V* mile. Following this road to the west one passes the junction to Crooked •.1 pie C. River Ranches continuing straight on through the road that one has been cam.;ns traveling and from then on it is simply following the road until you come to ' R"I" this site.. Major landmark at this site is the old mill and. Office buildings «1elerlids 131.1miaes plus the very distinctive water tower which is equal to that which most small e towns might have. �--.1 1.,(11ArefiC I'DY7 /4 -1-z, VIO_A---YVI __) va, v v1.7...,v 12100 / --‘--f P.' VI ‘ L-v _____. ......_____ ... OM" ,.._.44Wly rs'o 0 go/4K- , ,,,,i soings ii . L-lc, • IL ...... a ;,,, ,,,,t- • , P1111P •?3 ip IF 1 1 , Dam c v ."--■,1.1" ...,01 10 * MI 1,,ike it 0 Jeff,rson alb ril_ity-- \.... 10111%,014;":4._.• _,.... ____ _ 0 i',.. ' '' '111 (--- r /d L V4 .. . 0 .frfil oi., "6...3,,. Lake h'ill) ?".• a • 'IN 4. I (hillook a 1 1 411 11 i" , iR 1::' _ , '',a • ° ; O ;of* ,;(3),.('vt " 2 I ip.t?fr 11 c..,., ,. ,..... , 1 2 . • iill .4Ik - '3 0'," ••4, i'w-tc;;1( tillitown,. . (,...iii,t:. .11, 0 : 4!to i •. , 13 I( 0.63 .1: 4, \111A; Cathi 1. fii. .."4 i ', limiiiiiii 1„,... \ • 1 a 71111 1-60' $ •.: or"..- • • ,,i9.,!1....., k°) 4.,416,!PL, . '. -•-• t ! r, ' # A• 1 0 /...... r_., 0 itsfe er .: . - .-). • , 7 • 41111*,..1 „ . 1 , (Alio ri : ii,... . • - . . •,, 0 //4 . .1,-..•;40,,,,, t..., *----....., 1 ‘ - k ■ toNNS4-„„„ ,,,,`,V;,t`V/,,„,'7AP.,,,•',..7 ..,70 it VOL,i Ilk 1111 0 % mici :,„tr b Vitylik River til lik • .410 * '' • • # Ilviii• It -Noof t ,',,,7 v v z 43,....• Vint r -tx. . 6: il, .- .wirri!,:, i —,-: k•-• 4 ch, ... ..N*.. ' 1.-41„:,i , ' ,f) V! 0 "-• iir 16 .3 - • •A .., ?,/fPivil 4 t kink..., 110111' **2,.",:it.).i 7.1*iiii-TA• .C;,61b *, ist\'', : _■ ., ,..wk...4, ..-*-0.40 . ' • Of. ■ 1. .... — 144 IA . tit!:• '0 :'lb li \-------' '-'1'.1•11(r.:-:::///( 11- ;Iii -10p 0 1 \ • (7■.: , :0 pit.-t. o ' Rr'Arl voir I) 4( ii* q9461.4:6"i , ........_ ._ .7... - 4,1 •G''1. 7 "' -...:42ire.r-- il :).* '., ----- -----"- * -----*--—-- "- x'Im . * t.v i-, f 0 I „ 4-,c§): , ii,..5, „ , .1.4 - •. . ,..,.. ,, ... e 1 4,1-, cm■.0 ., , . .,.. ..,' i RI 1 0 0 ' • ,6, )■% .. .1z),,...cci' . 4,,Nil.IV •.• 4 ' ___ . _ 1 ...._ wbi - d) _ 1 9 . 4 040 jr. ttexialoo r 1 6 8 4 ,p4,-.11.ma;4.8/_.:(..''...• 4:7 k 11'' . _ „.„,_ 111*:-Ilibill1111111111111 ' f. il '-dil - „itioihn,,,, , ).(ilic volittir . 0,T. No frig%n* 1 7 Prairie ..sert,r ;M. • 0.,• „" „Fauvp - 4 1... La api nu Gal li l' p• . 15 ,..... -2...!?-/- .. Warm Springs ..i .. dt . •-• n • , .,. ,.....1. .._•••,.,re • Impermeable ......1...........J.,41:: ,:, '-•--`-'k- Barrier ,(-. ;:••-•••-•••• ' 1L'- .:'"jPf • Pelton Dam i \ '•,:t," ( " \!,7 , ,, _ , 0 , * Madras IVetk Round Butte Dam 11 s Metolius Chief Area of ,i ; - Cround-Water /"A„.• 1 Discharge y ' ‘ / v( i`It\ •14 J # JP\ 1 I •! os w / •\‘1,„ 4t*t,'% 1 • I . , • : • ..„ k too II,la■ . / #1' ■11,,1-1 ,f4f . . i _.- • i a / \ Terrebonne •. _.. 4 , . Sisters -slille ,,.() 1 ift t Redmond ' ' Cline Falls ( _ • c.* --- 1 • , 0 .: . . , • 4 i Ttmialo . 4,•':N:, I 4 t . ".,;74. ■___, Bend •/ t i N , • --:•,F,t •v-r•r14. • • /• • ,,7°-1:2' 1 / • .-: ., ,.. l f"----4 ,Benham Falls ..; • .. .i.z., 0 10 20 mi. -!-"jVf:•-- . l'i • , :•4_',.' -71-0,77 15%CeserS,J" 40.074- F/e-5/ /94e '...?..4.-"t FIGURE 4. --MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA SHOWING CHIEF AREA -. . . .,, . OF GROUND-WATER DISCHARGE. . ... ARROWS INDICATE GENERAL DIRECTION OF GROUND WATER-MOVEMENT. • t . "•.j .1 ' -..•••:1•."~". ; !i ' 4,6tidlii , TERREBONNE DIATOMITE FORMATION Typical Stratigraph (DE4) FORMATION STRATA "'N 40ESCRIPTION TO APPROX. SCALE THICKNESS RO A N SURFACE Alluvial Soil r///Mr:0? A'/=•'/ 1 2' -� Soil and Gravel � '�,�/' ^� 1 4' J M • -, •. ,....1.$ 1.. .,1• 4a -w Cemented Sand and Gravel ..``,'• • �°� ' ° • - 3t M • o f -. 4- Sand and Gravel * •• . •,' • . 2' O • . . .. e - ��y ••r., , j. 1111 Sand • ' 10'-12' m �) •• • ' • ' 0 p �A . r .• O d. • Sand, Pumice, and D. E. • ' 3' *No. 1 D. E. , High Quality 4' *No. 2 D. E. _— — -- Good Blending Quality _ --___ 8'-10' o *No. 3 D.E. and Silver Sand ' -;;. '.�;-I%:t 2"66" *' *No. 4 D.E. -- --- c cg l Good Blending Quality 2' o *No. 5 D. E. - o i High Quality ____ 5' m *No. 6 D. E. quite variable in thickness, -- 4'-12' I not being worked at -- " present. --- — ''No. 7, Yellow Sand ' •', . . - g • 3".4" • • 1 -No. 8 D. E. Contaminate. -_7-177.r — 19 BOTTOM OF DEPOSIT 25-30 ft. Red Conglomerate below *Stratum Number D.E. abbr. for diatomite -.5- -:,1.4 INTER"^17' "�E MEMO .L,4# STATE OF ORF.� r _ ,ate TO: Milan Synak C DATE: February 23, 1976 • Frederick C. Lissner F FROM: l . FiE It /10(2L SUBJECT: Deschutes Valley Sanitation Monitor Wells On September 7, 1975, Gordon Davidson drilled two monitor wells Sanitation in Section 16., Township 14 South, an a l2 Eas . Copies of't.h� elo s were forwarded-to you on February 2, sh 1976 owing rree the senceof "Dicali e." (a trade name for diatomite) depths of 16 feet and 17 feet respectively, The actual thickness of diatomite in the vicinity of the wells is much less than that as reported by myself and Bob Paeth. However, no action is planned by this office against Mr. Davidson's license. It is felt that, inasmuch as Mr. Davidson is not a geologist,. he cannot be held 1 ..for incorrect identification of diatomite and tuffaceous sands. ` $...„,\I ‘ X4.5 ` ,,1 �n,V u p 1 - �f Do tUF NFEID D G r 0L 06157- Pl fitl 6 aN lll' IV t1Ui-LL OR t,NG 4 r' °7rl F .r �p Lr P L , IN, ' Day ' 1 � ro "►AKz Sue: ► +A7 dot �vlt(./ (?� 'A %) A CG u R.A1-i w E 4L c.o G r ? ail• vi 1� r� , ,601 A di . Ir .,. .., r 1 •cs*o " STATE OF OREGON INTERO HCE MEMO ,;� TO: Bob Free DATE: necember 13, 1977 State of Oregon DEPAi2;;;_T:r 3r E...;;;;;9:.:EP.TAL QUALITY FROM: R. Kent Mathiot • d v 1 \ LE I I) DEC z o 1917 SUBJECT: Deschutes Valley Farms proposed solid waste sites. BEUD IUSTRICT OFFICE The following comments are in response to your request for information concerning the ground water conditions at the two proposed Deschutes Valley Farms solid waste sites in Deschutes County. Both sites are located on the abandoned Oremite Mine property situated approximately six miles north and eight miles west of Redmond in Section 16 of Township 14 South, Range 12 East, Willamette Meridian. My remarks are based on observations made during a visit to the property on December 6th, and on a review of pertinent hydro- geologic information. This information included several reports done in conjuction with earlier waste disposal programs proposed for this property. The initial purpose of the December 6th site investigation was to gather information concerning the suitability of the Deep Canyon site, (see attached map), for use as a solid waste disposal site. However, at the request of the property owners, a brief investigation of an alternative I site, (the lagoon site), was also carried out. GENERAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The northwesterly meandering, steep walled, Deschutes River Canyon cuts into the landscape along the northeast edge of the property. The canyon walls and various road cuts near the property expose the alternating layers of sedimentary, pyroclastic, and volcanic materials that underlie this portion of central Oregon. Also exposed are remnants of the exten- sive, near surface diatomaceous earth deposits which were mined at the Oremite property. Based on well log data for .the area, I would estimate that the water table beneath the property is at approximately,2,550,feet above sea level , or approximately, 1 below the mean s rf ce plem ti_on__ Recharge to this ground water body is supplied by precipitation in the upland areas to the south and west. A portion of the rainfall and snow melt in these upland areas infiltrates into the subsurface and eventually reaches the water table. The ground water then moves in a northeasterly direction towards the Deschutes River canyon and other discharge points. In the Deschutes River canyon the ground water is discharged to the river, via seeps, springs, and as underflow to the river channel. Precipitation at Redmond averages approximately 8.6 inches per year and the potential evapotranspiration averages 23.4 inches per year. Gusty winds are quite common to this area. Bob Free • -2- December 13, 1977 DEEP CANYON $IJI: Deep Canyon, located along the northwest edge of the Oremite property, cuts approximately 100 feet into the surrounding plain. The proposed fill site is a section of the canyon which is bounded on both ends by artificially placed fills, and which is approximately one mile "up canyon" from the juncture of Deep Canyon and the Deschutes River canyon. A 1955 U.S.G.S. map shows a perennial stream flowing in Deep Canyon, whereas as 1962 U.S.G.S. map shows the canyon as a intermittent drainage way containing several springs. No water was flowing in the canyon at the proposed waste site during the December 6th investigation. However, ground water was being discharged at what appeared to be a year-round spring located approximately 300 feet down canyon. Evidence of recently standing and flowing water was observed in Deep Canyon at the proposed waste site. This was most likely attributable to recent, heavier than normal, local rainfall and snow melt. In addition, a considerable amount of water appeared to have entered the canyon through vertical fractures that were observed in the tuffaceous materials that make up the canyon walls. These vertical channels were quite common, and appeared to provide relatively direct access to the canyon for surface waters. The approximate elevation of Deep Canyon at the proposed waste site is feet above sea level. A three to ten foot thick, artifically placed fill on the canyon floor, and the impracticality of bringing a backhoe down the steep and rubblely access route prevented the examination of subsurface conditions at the site. LAGOON SITE: Previous work has shown that this area is underlain by a varying thickness of diatomaceous earth. Although no definite boundaries have been established for the proposed landfill operation, the anticipated . site is in an area which is reportedly underlain by more than 18 feet of the diatomaceous earth. This is in turn underlain by an undetermined thickness of tuffaceous material , the upper portion of which is well indurated. Evidence of periodic surface water runoff was observed in the area of the proposed fill site, however, the permanent water table beneath the site is apparently between 100 and 200 feet below land surface. CONCLUSIONS: Deep Canyon site - Several natural ground and surface water charac- teristics make consideration of the Deep Canyon site for a solid waste y disposal area very impractical. The site is in a natural drainage way which enters a major, environmentally delicate, river canyon a relatively C.. �. Bob Free -3- December 13, 1977 short distance from the proposed fill. Active springs are located both up-canyon and down-canyon from the site, and surface water seepage (irri- gation, snow melt, heavy rainfall) , periodically enters the canyon via vertical fracture systems. In addition, a permanent regional ground wat t an undetermined, bu w, ep h beneath the canyon floor; an the nature of the subsurface materials at the site has not been determined. Lagoon site - From a ground water protection standpoint, the lagoon X site is much more suitable for development as a solid waste disposal area. The impermeable nature of the underlying diatomaceous earth, the apparent 100 foot plus separation distance between land surface and the permanent ground water table, and the distance of the site from surface drainage ways and springs are all favorable characteristics. Once the actual site location has been established, further site specific work will be required to insure that subsurface conditions are adequate and that occasional surface runoff can be directed away from the disposal area. RECOMMENDATIONS: Boundaries for the proposed lagoon site should be established, and a plan for site construction and operation developed. Once this has been completed, it will be possible to re-evaluate and confirm the optimistic preliminary interpretation of the site. The utilization of the Deep Canyon site could create many potentially significant environmental problems. If the site is to receive further consideration, extensive additional information on the local ground water conditions must be provided. This information would consist of data on the groundwater gradient, depth to water table, subsurface materials, and a more thorough evaluation of the local spring activity. Utilization of this marginal site does not seem advisable when a much more suitable area is located nearby. • cc: Joe Schultz ; . _ . . . . ■ . . . . , ; . . . . . . . . . It .. _ . . . 1 i i. 1 1 f P , _ 1 . 1•041.•ink. eg.+44-11e7)t 33' 1 9 ° ° °I- II". ' 6 to-011111111.111.111111r,Mr NWragla bourr4h au 4.14 . . , , .. .. . 1 ■ . \ a i i ilit . . . - ..- I 1 .._ . . . . _ . . . . . Deschutes Valley Sanitation, 1984 . . . A i r 3 THE EAST SIDE 1. The East Side - Map attached. 2.4 Acres still not reclaimed 2. Plus the 6.2 Acres the map shows as reclaimed=8.8 Acres on the East Side. Applicant should show proof: Where is the Paid Invoice for the Topsoil to show that the 2.4 Acres were reclaimed? Where is the 2002 Letter from Mr. Schnitzer, stating that reclamation was completed? His May 2001 letter states it will be done within 12 months. Attached:2001 Mined Land Reclamation Letter and attached Map. p THE WEST SIDE 1. The applicant did not provide all of SP-85-23: Per the Staff Report-5/15/15: SP-85-23--A site plan to allow surface mining, aggregate mining, and rock crushing on tax lots 1501, 1502, 1600, and 704.This decision included reclamation specifications attached as Exhibit C to the Hearings Officer Decision for SP-85-23 but materials are missing from the record, including any map of the subject area and the updated reclamation plan required by, Condition 1._The applicant submitted testimony and evidence demonstrating the area covered by the reclamation requirements for SP-85-23 encompasses an 18-acre area just north of Lower Bridge Way and west of the site access road off Lower Bridge Way.Compliance with a County approved reclamation plan is made a condition of this approval as discussed further herein. 2. Here are the Missing Documents, the public has found: A letter stating the "required" reclamation of 21 Acres not 18 and 12 Inches of Topsoil, not 6. Between the missing documents from the Applicant and then they misstating the true#s it is hard to follow the dots. So please find that Letter attached, dated June 12, 2000 from DOGAMI. 3. Please have the Applicant provide the proof of 21 Acres of 12"deep topsoil, a receipt of delivery, was completed when mining ceased in 2006, per this requirement. THE DE DUST STORMS 1. The Work Plan was to include watering on a Limited License of 5 years. Yet the watering stopped way before then and the seeding did not cover the area enough to keep the DE Dust down. Rex Barber, Jr. was to be in charge of the watering and to provide a watering log. Please have applicants provide that watering log. S p Page 2 2.The Watering Plan to plant seeds and vegetate the area did not take not only due to lack of watering but due to allowing their Electric Permit for the Pivot and Irrigation to Expire. Permit#247-E101174 Was approved in June 2008 and Expired in system that Dec. So one season of watering vs.5 as planned. 3. "The Lower Bridge Road Reclamation Plan-Dec. 3.2008" had a promise from the applicant to reclaim the mined out area to 12 inches deep,to motor grade, seed and plant native grasses,sufficient enough to stop the DE Dust Storms and ... to plant Evergreens for shade and Windbreas on the site. Where are these trees? That was 7 years ago._.STILL NOT TREES TO STOP THE WIND AND DE FROM BLOWING ABOUT AND NO TOPSOIL OR GRASSES THAT HAVE WORKED TO CONTROL THIS NUISANCE. Photo of the last DE Dust Storm is attached,taken in October of 2015. As many neighbors have testified at these meetings and hearing,we continuously get the DE Dust Storms and the excavation of 19 Lots would only add to more dust pollution. 1 1 • Ho. maintaining slopes. The applicant has s!ta brat the topsoil A., is stockpiled and with ac oR the ar@ fined . e app can proposes to orgrve s e and se it with fortress red fescue, Idaho fescue, and mixed buncbgrass at a rate of 40 pounds per acre planted in the fall with fertilizer and mulch. The applicant also proposes to plant evergreens for shade and wiedbreaks an the site. No drainage problem has been noted on . the site and visual tentend'g is generally not a problem on 9G4q) the- site except adjacent to the baseballs River and Lower �'G �,tC Bridge Road. The applicant hes: stated in the section regarding water impounds of the burden of proof statement that public access for fishing will continue along the ' Deschutes River. III. COMCLUSIOMARY MOMS: A, Section 4.100 of PL-i5, to **Debates Comet/ Wave Ordinance, )1146e- establishes the vies permitted fa the Berme Miming Zone. 511 (*traction of Sand and ereael tep001 bed Other stockpiling, �g, ate OT material,materi al s fng, pracasslbg �ashinq and sizing aggregate ■a are considered outright uses in Y - this zone. The applicant hes applied for a zone change from .j- SMA to SN and, if the zone change is approved, the proposed uses would be outright uses in this zone subject to this site r'644/ plan review. . // � 0, Section 4.100 (5) of PL-15 establishes setbacks within a R [Sys,, Surface Mining Zone. The subject proposal meets the setback . requirements of this tone with the possible exception of: _ - 'b) At least a 300-foot setback shall be maintained from all 4"44€-. property lines adjoining roads that are Landscape Management areas as defined by the Comprehensive Plan, as well as from any stream or lake unless a shorter setback can be shown to have no negative visual or aesthetic impact. There is a portion of, the l'of located within 300 feet of the Deschutes River. it is unclear from the site plan whether or not any mining will occur to this area. There is a relatively steep slope upward to the west from the river to the subject site and, if no miming occurs near the edge of the top of the slope, it does not appear that it will be visible from the river. The staff believes that it is important to protect the river in this area and that no mining should be visible from the river in aey weir. C. Section 5 ryf the surface mining section of the Zoning Ordinance regeires all outright and conditional uses in the Surface Mining Zone to comply with site plan review. D. Section 4.100 (7) of PL-1S establishes the requirements for site plan review for surface mining. It appears that the applicant's burden of proof statement sati sfactori l l addresses most of these requirements with some possible s exceptions. ' These exceptions include: • 'a) A list of known materials for the surface excavation operation is to be conducted.' . Al though the applicant hes stated this 'will be a sand end gravel operation, the site plan also addresses the location of diatomaceous earth. It appears that the resovel of a gravel , material, which is goseraily the stockpiled overburden for the diatomaceous earth, could pry the mining of the diatomite. I.t should be made el ea rshet sod site el!, does not uncle ud• the ■1 niaa of dicta acaari oar 'b) A definitive statement of the subsequent beneficial use of_the s i to of 1 oral m ■ ng. The applicant has stated that grasiis now occuring on land that has been reclaimed. It setts t it is assumed this will be the subsequent heoeffeiel !se, however, the staff believes that Certain portions of the site will be mined in the future for diatomite, tt a me that this should be considered an interim use of the property prior to final C+ice:?N. reclamation, jf articular very to the staff is the Sd/L natari _ • ' a �! i ►. i ?l s to 71/7— • or roc - "' r rri tnr3 Ch 6-gem/A, rags res su c ent overboertl„. tion. T e s es s ;,41 a - see •nformation she._1 . • • •ed r ga.r- n• 40 . '0 0 • . kT1771711rOkl. a. E.' - Criteria S (K) requires that *visual screening which emphasizes native plants and trees will be provided when the operating permit area will be in site of a public road, highway, or residential area. The proximity of the recent mining to Lower • Bridge Road raises same concern. Currently, there are shear faces Of approximately 50 fest in height within 100 feet of the road. While a staff *sober was visiting ,thy site in early April of 1995, several cubic yards of this material collapsed from the top portion of the slope, indicating a potential safety hazard exists is this location. While it is difficult to disguise mining activities this close to the road, It seems additional information is needed to address this problem. he ,y problem which the staff sees with this a pllcatioe is t e lack of s• = • •ardin, the sites to be mime, apptbn seems to request t . = en- r arcs : subject to this site plan review. however, the applicant's Exhibit C designates two areas totalling approximately 16 acres for sand and gravel removal . The staff believes that these are the only areas which should be considered as part of this review. . S. The applicant has stated fn the burden of proof statement that 'a crusher, washing equipment, but plant, ready-mix plant and trucks are anticipated to be located on the site. The site • plan does cot reflect the location of these uses. The staff • SP-65-23 - Page -4- • ir believes that the location of these uses near Lower Bridge Road or the Deschutes River could conflict with the . Comprehensive Plan and the tateat of this ordinance. The applicant needs to provide iefsraetion on the precise location of these uses. Iv. CONCLUSIONS ANO REC0111101,ATIOVE, The remote nature of this st for siaing and the existing stockpiles from which *ost sate material will be removed, Sears to lower the . ` ftemt's hordes in fulfilling the site plan requirement of Zoml drdieence. The site and reclamation plum geeerellg, its the requirements of the Deschutes County Zoning Draftee* with certain exce tions cited in this. report. These 1 fide the in,acts from the Dtec i .fi:s • :Linn• n. ens ra on 4 T �Y"nT u t7rT --?51 ' ,�.,, S c � 000 S ' ! a 010 71.• • • wit parrs $ e ■ e mg fete poansf are eg nera y 0/0 ministerial in nature, the Planning staff believes that it can work with the applicant to adequately meet those requirements. The staff hopes that these problems can be worked out prior to � ( the bearing so that a recomaendatlon of approval can be made 'Y at that tine. 1,A) ' 6R/sw Sr • $P-86•Z3 Page -6- I r . ii• •.. ,. ti. . ., .. ,, . ZGr •3 . Art 104.1_4_ .1".0.c....ArfritIMI.I.• 1:11,11*" ''. • , ,4 I, .illit J........Faidi a%.14.111.11 Actiii • J6 c.14, St-+ r1� .. . • . .M4 .i ....... _ r _ �_ .rrr R+a.._ .4.�_—.......��_. _ .. _ • • Of j._ ._r-•-_w-vr�- �`- . . :...�.......—. ,._. ....� ..... . . ... . .. ... . _ems _•�1:� . ,�:--.__. _- __--__......_- .- _-- -. .. , . . ..4..____......____._____r2t4-iee4-4f1. _0-V-i-f .::-.-.11--<dr.g•°-... -e_, . , . ,._ . oseel"' .. . ..-i-14.6-a ass,„. . CrIC4POYL .■** ...... I. . _. . ._ _...i __ _ _- ____-_ _. . ._ . -- .-- --._ . -.-___ ---- . .. . " . - . 1 _,; -.__-. .•_..... ...,*_....__._*Y.*.__..rm.,..... . ._.__.�.._ _. __. • •• .1 r June 12,2000 Frank Messina Department of Environmental Quality 7, DOGAMI regulates in excess of 800 permitted sites statewide. S. DOGAMI has five Reclemationists to cover the state. 9. DOGAMI inspections occur during the initial permitting phase and at the completion of mining. At many sites DOGAMI inspections occw annually or even monthly. At many other sites inspections may not occur for several years. When credible complaints are received regarding a mine site DOGAMI will schedule-an inspection. Typically a follow up-inspection is conducted if the site is found to be in noncompliance. D00AM1 must give reasonable notice prior to an inspection as per oOAR 632-W0-024. 10. As a result of the May l5th,2000 complaint,DOGAM1 personnel met with DEQ personnel and the landowner on May 30, 2000. The operator has been notified he must come into compliance with the DEQ air quality rules and regulations. A timeframe for this compliance was issued. (IDoGAMI does not have a copy of the 1985 site plan review compiled by Deschutes County. 12. DOGAMI does not have statutory authority to regulate hours of operation. This issue falls under the jurisdiction of the county. There are four conditions to the DOGAMI permit: Make a minimum of one foot of topsoil available to reclaim all post-1972 lands affected by this mining operation. Not complete excavations which will prevent access to the utility poles unless a written agreement is obtained with the utility company and submitted to DOGAMI. iii. Not spoil material along the outslope above the Desohutes River. iv. Contain turbid and sedimenttladen surface water runoff on the mine site. Enforcement of any county conditions relating to this operation are the responsibility of Deschutes County. Enforcement of air quality regulations is the responsibility of the DSQ_ DOCAMI will schedule an inspection of this operation in the near future_ A copy of the inspection report will be sent to DEQ Bend. Please contact me at(541) 967-2039 xt. 24 with any further questions. Sin sly, Ben Mundie Roclamationist Mined Land Reclamation Enclosure: Inspection Report 07/28/94 amvsosxNUYsgwa ia 06.89401.17 mac regon Department of Geology&Mineral Industries Mined Land Reclamation .. )ohn A.Itiexhabcf,M.D.,cn.nmor 1536 Queen Avenue SE Albany,OR 97321-6687 (541)967-2039 June 12, 2000 PAX(541)967-2075 Frank Messina RECEIVED Department of Environmental Quality 2146 NE Fourth JUN 13 mu Bend., OR 97701 Eastern Region- Bend Re: DOGAMI-IL) 09-0036 Dioalite Pit Dear Frank: On May 30,2000 we met with a landowner along Lower Bridge Road regarding complaints against the mine operation conducted by Oene Moore,DOGAM1 ID No.09-0036. The mine site is located in tax lots 1501. 1052, 1600,704, 1507,and 1508;portions of sections 9, 10, 15,and 16,T 14S,gin Deschutes County. It is understood the local landowner would like to remain anonymous. During this meeting 1.was handed an unsigned letter with 12 questions regarding the mine operation. It was decided that answers to these questions would be sent to you and then forwarded on to the landowner. Following are responses to the questions numbered as they were submitted. 1. The landowners listed on the original application dated 10/26/81 are: Robert L. Riemenschneider, Frank Nolan, and Norman Wiegand,PO Box 190 Redmond, OR 97756. 2. The property boundary corresponds to the DOGAMI permit boundary and encompasses 550 acres. 3. There are no limitations on bow many acres may be mined for aggregate or diamataceous earth within the permit boundary. 4. This site was last inspected in June 1994. Copy of inspection report isitttaclied to this letter. 5. Based on the 1994 inspection,Mr.Moore had final graded approximately five to seven acmes at the operation east of Lower Bridge Road. It should be Rated-that approximately 380 acres of this mine s ��re mined prior to 1972. This means the 380•b4-xes are tempt from the reclamation rules and regal ions. Currently there are approximately 21 acres of mine disturbance that are required to be imed_ Reclamation is not required until mining cesse3e_ 6. Once mining is complete the operator has three years to finish reclamation. DOGAMI shall in most instances consider reclamation successful when the revegetation is comparable in stability and utility to adjacent unmined areas. if reclamation is not deemed successful and the operator refuses to complete any required additional work,AOQAMI may demand the reclamation bond held for site and contract the work out The current bond held for this site is$10,000. Upon annual renewal of the DOGAM.I permit Mr. Moore will be requested to increase the bond. Page 1 oft Oregon Dept of Geology&Mineral Industries Matra,Lmd Regulation&Redamatioa Piverszt 229 Bnasdalbia St SW Alhioy OR PM-2246 (34X)9157-2039 OPERATING PERMIT--Renewal ISSUED SUBJECT TO ANY LISTED CONDITIONS ��r�rr�ru�lur�r�r�n��rn'�ul ID No.: 09-0036 L.A.Moore County: Deschutes 209 South Third Section: 9 1015 16 Redmond OR 97756 Twp: 14S Range: 12E Tax Lot Site: Dicalite Pit This permit shall be in effect,unless revoked or suspended for cause,from the date of issuance and shall remain in effect so long thereafter as the Permittee pays the annual fee to renew the permit,complies with the provisions of ORS 517.750 through 517.955 as applicable,the Rules as promulgated to administer the Oregon Mined Land Reclamation Act,the approved reclamation plan,and any conditions attached to this permit,and maintains a performance bond as required by the Act. Issuance of this permit is not a finding of compliance with suite-wide planning goals or the acknowledged comprehensive plan. The applicant must receive land-use approval from local government before using this permit. NOTE Reclamation plans maybe nxdifed per ORS 517.830(4)and OAR 632-(30)and(35)-035. CONDlflONS (Conditions may be appealed per OAR 632-50-030. If an appeal is made,this permit is invalid nil the condition(s)appealed is/are.re&/ved and the permit reissued) The Permittee shall: 1. make a minimum of one foot of topsoil available to reclaim all post-1972 lands affected by this mining operation. — 2. not complete excavations which will prevent access to the utility poles unless a written agreement is obtained with the utility company and submitted to DOGAMI. 3. not spoil material along the ou above the Deschutes 4. contain turbid and sediment-laden surface water runoff on the mine site. Issued ,2004 I_ h Assistant r . for Rte,IS IlEfamtED BY JANUARY 31.2QQ5 1 c: Deschutes County Planning Department DEQ Bend Norm Wiegand Madras Robert L.Riemenschneider Redmond Frank Nolan Redmond ODFW Bend Soil&Water Conservation District Deschutes County/Jefferson County Redmond Tom Anderson,Deschutes County Planning Department Bend cea- UmnocPar Yro0 .I fl 2 - 0433 7 --- 1- Ay 1`�� > / 1 9 F ,__.../) A$tdimgprt 1• 1 ••\ L • : 1t't ,�.' Q. % - - -• ■ •• -p•..w^". ___ __, ____ ., ........ "r �L� ,.1 1 I...._ „.„.. N+aur ? -'s swig, Rw . %If ^Inlr� Pt �WMw _ ' •' ' •• .1 1$ ' t• /(„,,..:,..: . ./ r� • iii ..: . . , :' ..41 .,-i , . , 1 .i . f .........V.) 1 . I / ", : ..•.• ./ ('). if; r II r f. • s fr~ y� 1 asa 19�' ..c�� 20 S, +�� o ZOO-0O-01SOI ;I 1 .11 • 1 CiC I Dtriea,Otco + ....r jr.. ': I 1 �f' 'j - i pttoS/or boa On •• #tea. -•�., ,'1 . ,ten ,w 0' • - ./.,---),,'-.// 91,' . . ...... - ... r , � _ _., ,. 1 r .. 111.. ,. ...Pr I. 1•.- 1:'" 1 /• ..'µH1• ■ 6 1 •s ,... 1 I I •J . T. DESCHUTES COUNTY RECLAMATION ?L.el GUIDELINE AND FORMAT 1 s i i A_ NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE OPERATOR OR N1IS AGENT: 1 Mid-Oregon Ready Mix . P.O. Box 519 f Redmond, Ore. 97756 548-5111 R. NANE AND ADDRESS OF I DOiiER: - r Robert L. Riemenschneider, Prank Nolan & Norman Wiegard 2276 W. Highland . . i Redmond, Ore. 97758 548-4398 ' C. LIST OP Px4OU; sAITRIALS FOR i1NICS THE OPERATION $5 TO BE CONDUCTED: 1 Sand and gravel removal 1. PROPOSED STARTING DATPE: Upon snbmiasion of zone change application Z. PROPOSED ■IiDING DATE (IF 1 ): Not kuown I D. OPERATIONAL PLAN: • 1. KETNUtm TO BE EMPLOYED: I i K. SINGLE BENCH c. DREDGE r b. MULTIPLE BENCH t. OTHER L_tko j jx,_ _._..__ 2. TYPES OF EQUIPMENT TO BE USED: . Scoop. Cat , crusher,• washing equipment hot plant, ready-mix plant and trucks 3. DISPOSITION OF OVERBURDEN: - . Left to reclaim pit after desired material is removed B. WHAT WILL BE T!IG PLANNED SUBSEQUENT "BENEFICIAL USE" OF TOE i'CRNIT AREA? T1lIS CAN INCLUDE, HUT IS NOT UNITED TO, CONSTRICTION SITS, SA'NIT1RY LAtih PILL. PARK, WATER IMPOUNDMENT, AGRICULTURAL USE (SE SPECIFIC. EXAMPLE; CRAZINC LAND, CROP 13 ES MANTEL ETC.). FOREST IAA. • (±razing 1s now ocouring on land that has' been reclaimed *Tape E HT8IT "C" • -]- 1 I j t A i - { S. •• , •. ) .., F. 'RECLAMATION MUST at COMPLETED WITHIN 3 YEARS FOLLOWIUG COMPLETION OF MINING. ExcEpr Ili CASES OF CONCURRENT RECLAMATION. i a. Reclamation will began _a_ days following coaplecion o[ mining. i . b. Reclasatiou will be concurrent with mini.ng Ye$ No 1 If yes, explain concmrrent procedure: 1 As the desired material is exhausted, those areas of the pit will be reclaimed with stockpiled overburden. 1 • G. RECLAMATION PROCEDURES 1. WHAT WILL YOU DO TO IYS� GROOM STARtLITY? - Natural erosive.stabilization and by maintaining slopes (State req.) and drainage systems. 2. PROVISION FOR REYEGWTIOOI (KIND SURVIVAL RATE IS 7SX UNIYORMILY DZSTRIBUtED): a. 11x11 WILL YOU SAVE AND WWII TOPSOIL? 1 (--. Topsoil 11 ,subsoil•: stockpile on site b. WHAT 1tgAS1JBP •UILL YOU TAKE TO PREVENT. EITHER WIND OR VA i i.R . EROSION OF TOPSOIL DURING STORAGE? Water stockpile to foray a crust (or rainfall) . Five to ten acre sites will be worked and then reclaimed to avoid �� exposing large areas to the elements. c. WHAT WILL. _THE AVERAGE D P 1 OF 'TOPSOIL REPLACED ON THE AREA r�1 I �r TO DE RECLAIMED? 1.2" d. ROtl WILL YOU PREPARE SEED BED PRIOR TO PLANTING?' Motor graded and seeded. - • e. wind TYPES MR) AMOUNTS pF CRASS SPED WILL YOU RISE NR ACRE AND HoU %II.LL THIS BE PLANTED? , Fortress red fescue and Idaho fescue mix bunch grass. 40 pounds per acre, planted in the fall with fertilizer and mulct f, UHAT TYPES AND AN]LNTS OF PERT ILIZF.R, KIILC11 AND LIKE WILL YOU USE? No lime. We will soil test and determine what is needed at the time or planting. . R• tatAT ry c .1'1>; :MOTS OF SEEDL:.`�C5 Am) SIIRI'Cc !Ma. you l'L1R';'? Plant evergreens for shade and windbreaks that will not interfere with views. s EXHIBIT "C.' • • h. UDEN WILL SEEDING AND CD PLANC'IXG TARE PLACE (SEASON OP Yet)? Possibly is the fall after removal of desired material. H. WATER AHD ORAINAGC 1. NMAT P9OVtSION WILL YOU TAKE TO Mena P7tOPER DRA/MACE? The ground will pert water and appropriate slopes will be ' - motor graded to avoid ponding 2. VUAT FRoVIStoS MS SEEN TAKEN FOR SILT CONTROL? Not applicable - minor grades. A silt fence will be constructed if required if siltation becomes a problem. 3. IV WATER IaNFOUNDHENT IS TO BE IM. SEE PACE 6. Type II pounds. will not be a permenant pond, as water evaporate I.. VLSUdL > er long impoundment areas are planned. _-._-__- . UHAT VISUAL SCREENIN WU.I. YOU EMMY? None as the site is largely screened by terrain. The area is remote, sparsely populated with light traffic. --- --2. WHAT Tr PES, SIZES AND A►;of wrs OF PLANTS WILL YOU USE A Native vegetation is adequate and will be maintained. 19611-C 3. UHAT WILL RE THE SPACING BETWEEN PLANTS? Not applicable .f. PttOVlSIOI FOR MOVING STRUCTURES. EQULP.N&IT AND AI3EUSE FROM TTRE. PERMIT ARCA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECLANATIO!L PLAN: No strUCture'l or equipment are in :t condition to be removed within the next 5 years. Old unsightly $tatkpi.let will be worked for mineral and then leveled and reclaimed to become more useable and more sightly. R. MAP OF AERIAL PHOTO RLQIREk1E(TS 1. SGhL.'E OF AERIAL PHDTb TO >sl? SUBMITTED: 400 I. TAX LOT HAP REQUIRED. 3. MANS) REQUII LNEXTS: THE )IAP MUST SHOW, SOT IS NOT LIMITED 70: - s a. SCALE: (J" - GOO' to 600') b Norm SHALL BE INDICATED c. QU TERSECTIO::. SECTLON, io1N.".I:rP Aria :tvcE 4. rus \7.f:r: AND UrrtiCTIO!I TO NTA1l`"SV KING IPAI.l'IY c. LOCATEWS AND NAMES OF ALL STREA'_&S. WADS. RAILROADS. UTILITIES EXHIBIT "C`" -3- A 4 OYERYIEW OF JUSTIFICATION TO ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE MINING Nate: Reclamation guideline is a statement of criteria and at- tached to the reclamation map. The numbers (i.e. 7A) refer to the provisions as stated in Ordinance P1 -i5 Section 1 4.100 Surface_Mining Code. 1 7A. 1. Ownership names provided on burden of proof application and guideline. 2. Shown on reclamation plan map. 1 3. Stated In findings of fact and reclamation guideline. 4. Stated in findings of fact and reclamation guideline. S. a. Stated in reclamation guideline, vetotation on stockpiles is unnecessary as existing piles are already stable and new 1 stockpiles will be stabllzed in accordance with state and 1 county requirements. b. Same as 5a. c. Stated in reclamation guideline. d. Natural drainages will remain undisturbed wherever practical. State and local requireients for rehabilitation will be complied with if drainages are disturbed. There are no planned disturbances at this time. also see reclamation guideline for additional information. e. Stated in recla►aation guideline. f. Stated in reclamation guideline. g. Stated in reclamation guideline. h. Stated in reclamation guideline and 755 growth survival requirement will be complied with. !. Stated in reclamation guideline. J. Stated in reclamation guideline and applicant will comply with standard requl reheats. k. Stated in reclamation guideline. EXHIBIT `C 1. The applicant will comply with this requirement. a. The applicant will comply with this requirement. n. Shown on reclamation map. o. Shown on reclamation map. • p. Stated in reclamation guideline. q. Stated in reclamation guideline. 78. Maintenance program. The applicant will comply with this requirement. 7C. No conflicts exist on the site. 70. Stated in reclamation guideline. 7E. Not applicable at this time. 1 1 I - EXHIBIT "C" a'" I♦ 1 CONDITIONS: 1. A minimum of 1' of topsoil will be available to reclaim all post-1972 lands affected by this mining operation. 2. Excavations shall not be completed which will prevent access to the utility poles unless a written agreement is obtained with the utility company and submitted to DOGAMI. 3. No material shall be spoiled along the outslope above the Deschutes River. FF NOTE: RECLAMATION PLANS MAY BE MODIFIED AS PROVIDED BY ORS 517.830(4) AND OAR 632-(30) (35)-035. The conditions of this permit are considered to be acceptable to the permittee unless written notice is received prior to the beginning of surface mining under this permit. Upon receipt of such notice by the Department, this permit is invalid and will be reissued when the cojiditions in question have been solved. A provisional operating permit may be issued (ORS 517.830(3)) to operators subject to the provisions of OAR 632-30-030(2) pending reissue of the operating permit. • .. .... 1 p • } fewer Bridge Road Redamatipp Plan Deember 3.2008 While the Lower Bridge Road site is not subject to the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries(DOGAMT)reclamation requirements,the applicant has used the standards relied upon by DOGAMI as a guide to developing the current reclamation plan. DOGAMI relies on OAR 632-030-0025 for reclamation plan requirements. Each plan is unique based on the site specific characteristics,but the rule says in part that a reclamation plan include provisions for the baclsfilling,reaontouring,topsoil replacement,seedbed preparation,mulching,fertilizing, selection of plant species,seeding or planning rates,and schedules. ( The original SP-85-23 Sitellan approval rition required stodwili4. of theme from the affected area and replacement on the mined areA approximate! 12 ' deep. A edition y,the area was to be motor graded ond seeded wr red fescue,Idaho fescue, wed bunchgrass at a rate of-40 pounds per square acre planted in the.fall with fertilizer and mulch. The applicant had also proyosed to plant eves for shad windbreaks on the r ,These standards were proposed by the applicant at the time and where not based on any standards. This plan was unrealistic as it did not include any provisions for watering and did not consider the short growing season. Specifically,planting in the fall would not allow the seed to . survive given the germination requirements and early hosts that are experienced. The current laann for reclamation includes re-vegetation consistent with future residential • development. Any areas at will not be used for future building sites,right of ways,or utilities will be re-vegetated concurrent with site development. The present plan respects the natural character of the area and considers the limited and scare water resources available for re- establishment of native vegetation. The current plan is designed to be successful based on recognized standards for the area. This plan considers the availability for water on a temporary • basis to help establish the vegetation initially. Long term maintenance of the natural areas is planned to be provided fiututt CC&R's that will be established with the fi a rr!sidr tia1 cevaopment The following standards will be used for re-vegetation for the 1985 Site Plan area. TOP SOIL The placement of topsoil that was removed fiom the mined been replaced and graded. For the 1985 site plan area,the top soil has already been replaced and graded to the°n; site' at conditions. r • • VEGETATION SEED MIXTURE A mixture of seed is proposed,consisting of the following species and rates: a. Great Basin Wild Rye 5.5 lbs per acre b. Annual Ryegrass,var."gulf' 20 lbs per acre c. Idaho fescue 1.5 lbs.per acre d. Sheep fescue 1.5 lbs.per acre EXHIBIT BOCC I l - Page 1 of 4 PDXSI6o9IVn5o7S11M t/3174675.n .1 .. - - It is recommended that the natives(Great Basin Wild Rye,Idaho fescue,and Sheep fescue)be drilled into the soil. Subsequently,the annual ryegrass can be broadcasted over the area along with the fertilir. Because the pivot will be applying water to initially control dust,the wetted surface conditions should prevent any significant wind displacement of the broadcasted ryegrass and fertilizer. It should be noted that native grasses are slower to germinate and establish than species such as annual ryegrass. Indeed,our research suggests that native grass seed application efforts can take up to two to three seasons to achieve significant rooting and cover crop conditions. The advantages to drilling the natives and broadcasting the annual ryegrass will be:a)to achieve a much more rapid vegetative cover that will sooner aid in wind blown soil events. Germination times for annual ryegrass in a typical soil environment in Central Oregon is approximately 5-6 days;and b)the initial cover of ryegrass will stabilize conditions for the later germinating native • • grasses. SOIL MOISTURE STABLIZER Apply approximately 20 lbs per acre"ZEBA"to control soil medium moisture content in the immediate surface layers. ZEBA is an absorbent polymer based on cornstarch that is biodegradable,nontoxic,and odorless. FERTILIZER Apply a fertilizer 16-16-16 mixture of fertilizer(equal parts nitrate,phosphorus,and potassium). Feat lizer will be applied at an approximate rate of 300 lbs per acre. Again,fertilizer will be applied along with the broadcasted annual ryegrass. Because of the typically low nutrient content of the planting medium,on-going fertilizer applications may be warranted to insure the more rapid development of an organic surface horizon. One future scenario could include applying manure as a more cost-effective alternative to granularized fertilizer. SEEDING AND PIVOT OPERATIONS the 'undwate r moni • LL �a •,. the si . ad' •is of the pivot cycle will be adjust, ed necessar - with a h7 y pivot cycle setting in the range(130-60 percent. Based on an approximate rate of 239 gpm deliverable through the pressure valves through the length of • the pivot,at a cycle setting of 100 percent water would be applied at 1.7 gpm/ac. At a cycle setting of 30 and 60 percent,water would be applied at a rate of 0.51 gpm/ac and 1.02 gpm/ac, respeCtively. The goals of adjusting the cycle are threefold:a)to control blowing dust events;b)to facilitate 1 seed germination;and c)to prevent overland runoff conditions and soil saturation where vertical ' or lateral water flow at depth occurs. 2- SIT BOCC 1 PDX/116094/1507521M5R/3174375.1 .page 20!4 The landowner will contract 'th an ad'scent farm , : A,rto:a install the seed,ZEBA,and r!1Yi. and maintain the i s- : ;ons of the .'vot;and c)to wit volut and hours of water app :4 oo�-� TIMING AND MONITORING v , • The success of the planting plan will be determined by the Coun through on site ink.__, The inspections shall begin upon re-vegetation of the area and 60 occur at intervals of three months,six months,and one year,with an inspection each year thereafter,until such time as•a final plat is recorded for the reclamation area. At the time of final plat recording,the County shall make a final dtermination that the site has been reclaimed/re-vegetated in accordance with the above plan as determined through the SP-85-23 site plan modification decision. On going maintenance of any reclamation areas that are not developed with residential development(i.e. streets,building foot prints,landscaped yard areas,etc.)shall be covered by CC&R's. • • • • , • • • • • • r ' F - z - } 3- Page 3of4 PDX/116094150752fl(ER/3174875.1 . i - .... . _,....„.„. ...„.., , s'••••:"."."--''••••'..4.':',•,-•-,7.E.0•,4,•;;;;24.; • • •-•-•• • •-•..-7-17; •-•r".. ,;.(.-j-.:,,-,q,•-•:.:,.-4rZ.;7:.':;:::'.'Y'....,-•'-.:•::•:..:.:,T.:'.i.•:' .' _;;•.. : ••...-....,.... 1 . 3,-.,,..-.---- ,.,'",-^•••-,".• : ii..;?-•L'.....','.."••••"`'..:....'...:•''...;.....4'?.:.',.. , .■,,i 1.i..t.:;■- •:::.,,'.:•.:'".•17-",.'.:••- ;.. •. .. .:'4• . ' :.....Z., •.- .•-•‘• ',...•• •,:-., ;'''.• ':'-•• ;t: • . ',4,,,t-V,tr.-."' '-' •••':7'4.• ...4,.\-.............,.._ ..• ...:... i.',' • ., ,'V%,•••,.'t:.•••.,•- •,,-',... ' . • ..' -- 4.-",I " • •t. . -— •Y.t -`' '.:.•,,,L,.>.-..-.1;;•••.,'t'.•-•• IS...........:47.--. .• • . -,--'`•''':' ••41":-'..1;•"-....-",•.•-•••••••'71•?•:-- ......, ., .7„—r,..1 , t., •• -.,.4,,,: „t.14., .. . .l'•. , ..... .-_-,.• •1•••••"-•,"-.."'''. —". 7 "44**ItEi 7.' -.7."••-'...:••.'"•;:•. .., . - • . .-S ., -- ' . • . " I%VC": *'. lilF,.. ts- • • .. ,r-.' .,• „ .i- +... •••*-,. • , ,,. , .7..,'• :-.• ... .... ., . . .Y. . .e• ..•'',:-.-:• :.!'' '''';';';‘, i'•••' -,....., r--•,' •.•.,,,,- :•,.....,. .. . • ..•• • •,..\• 1q;-. • -•■.7...,,...•4.,::::,:,.•-..'• . I .■;-it•, •.;•'• 7,'.'.-•... , . ,.,........"7:W.-.1• •;••.,•,.1,-.N.Z---._ •• 0 • !'. ', :-• : !.(”. - ' • • . . .. .. I ...... , • 1''.; , ' .....P..' • •'- ,• f •.•••••r"'..'",....-."..,■-.......,,,,,,,,,"-"' ...1.. 4 ... • ;.-;- ti .... , .--,...,!.„.... ..„....,........44 r ,. --.,-;-,v---_,..V?1.•-7. -.,,telq-t•••. .. I •-.;,.-:',X••-. • . ,, _%,.,_ , ,..; • .,.• ,.....- li : :-.• ,,,',...,;',,•••:-:. .._ . .. • . .•,-r•,•,...,- • , • :1.:.:ci: :•:.. • • -• . - L'i.i..A..-. • 5' 2 -. • • • 0.- • ...,_ ••,.., . , 1.,.-, ; • •- --.1.) •.''. .- ' i• ' •• ' .'.:,....- -; •:-._ ..-.'i. -....., • !"1! ,., ..,-..,...,..:, ,.,....„,....: , # . • . 1 -..,i,,-,• .,•• , ---,..„--'...5,1-1.‹•',•••4"• •-•• ,:r..- - • • . :.,,,.: ; i......:., ., —...-, •, . .......,—.4;...:4;;„,'-.. ..,--,;,-m\Y,. . . .•;.-:..,..... ...;*-,•••:.... .,, •.::....7,; ,. :.-.L • - ....-I11- . . ":'•i- _.: .---••-• ---,,r2--. •-• ,!!!'.,4-...,...H..--- ' • i.. ! :•:,!;.‹!!!if.0";. ..!!:,'."!!. .; r..!..,.,•,:-"b .. ,Api.,-..r.i.,.!!!!!!{:•.,.-:j .-", ‘.!;...-± , . -• • , ..- .•••,T.,....,3',74-7..•:..i,::..•T'.., "•/.•• • - ••,;.,•..• \-"'•'•-•••..•• ''''•"-r-.F.,k,,,y.',,",-•'• !---•.-e. -1, t, .,...,•.-•• ,,,.....• - .:. ......., ,....., .. -.,,,;.., . ,• ,.;....-2,,..„.,:-. .47-,,:5...,_.:;.,-.4,-ars••,•...-- ' •-,:,. -.010,7..;. .,,..,p.7,..:,...,--...•:(.,-,:,-,.,..•:‘....c.,;.,...z.:•••,,, • , •••• • —. . .::,: .-,4,:r,...•.--.7—,••:-•....-...,- 41,:.-- '.. . ' -...,44. ,,A..... .-...„:.-t,....ipz.. ,.1.**:,.,.4... .,....,,,..,..--• .. - : _ ,..0.... . .:... • . •.....,,T i .,..-7....,;(.• ' •. ...-.:...... .. --- - ._. -... -• .-..r..,-.4;•,._.i-,,•- 1.'„.•••',.. '`,....'..?.. 7.[-;••'.,-V.;•;•,,ii.„,..'.., s„,‘...,.... \ ....„ , . -s ' L. •--- , ' ' - ' d '"..'-'-• :=, :,257;-:.-.••,-'1•••••,' •,n,S.,'S':::,,,;:,,..,i1,,,,;'•••.iet". • ,.'',•'•• -2*.ii-;„"0;:13-'• ' ...'..:• .,,,,,,..*;; . . .,.,,,,, ... ,.......,. ...,..:-.-•;...;,--,3:1,,,,,..,;....••:;,...."-!.. -';,•:...-'77?,111.V:$,,,-;'..,, • -; . -'''''' - \ •.."-,':'-i-..,,,,, TA ' "',7i i .• ..... _.---.r-I\ ..'f-..;•'1.47:.4•C: • V:,, • ■ .."-;:t't 5 .-.:',..'.,'.•,,.i.,".irt-il", ,%...::A • -,,,...a".,' •-•',,■•*••"'-t...j I,lt,"Y••• I ''N'.::.:;4" ,";:','`;,.."..,L•';',,''`''''•-.' -)i..' / ': •--• •-;• ■ •.1:' j3-", ' 1,'.ii:.•i..y. 1 •, -..x Atmt .....i!.:" • •• .....t.:1, .--•;;.''-'''Z.?;;•?-11'!".^.-- . ••:.. ..711":••1!:;,I. •7'".. ' .•-••• ••'7. . ' 44,-,f;-,',-4.,,, -.c.•I •'.. ':--••• . ..-... •,..,..-.,,'",:j:0 A,.';.,"-',* ••••14 • . • I ...,,7 . i;•..:;''.••:,. .1',...:::1 -. ' k 4-• - r . 7:-.""*:,1°4:,,....!••'•11.r-''-''•:';:. ..‘•••••,...........:•... ' ,- - .•;1-‘7,72'1'''''-i-J--.31•:•%.'," '-`1L'f'-'4's,1- . . • . .k I , .•!'i:',...1-.• '',q!...:!'..Fi,....:` •::'' 8 A. ../ .L-••••;,-A--- . - § - - -- .,- • • . • - i'. ...-'-'"'" -'-' - ---,-.4"...5.1y.. •••7: -, i,,..,1;:7...,'>,..,..0 . -"-. : - -3*;-• 1--='7 '- • •-. •'•'' --; '-'->-,- .• ••,‹44,,tr.'....::,•4'•- •;•,ii,-4i,."'• -•4: ' , • !....•-•-• .., -•11,,.- • -.1.c v .,!. .,-;!",!..: . . ••' •-:- ..r.ik ... . - r.I., , -.. .,•-...vs-r-As. , i!,.......,..:-.'• ... ,,...,•,:-.. -c- - •- 2 k.•--- '''.:4111...i v tr"4: "•.". .-.'‘•i - .....•:, -•' 441, `'j)_,.. .•,,A.;••■••:'.', ) .1'1 4d a.'.f 1 A 1,'.r•'. 1 , Nt..-:.••''....'.." .".... ,..'.4:-.../ .e..:.:' '-'4'_ '' '-- 1%.1.',73 .1../::' f'. ...'.1.•''....,••.,::.,':,.':,•..-"...•..-4 TIW,....fe,rt-'1.,•" 4,1]...11;."..711.?:4,..'11r4/4.'.."' , :•,. . '-,:i ',. 'y..: ,,.,.. ;,--:' .; ,,T, ,'''.."..,'.,,,,cr.,''....:"7,Y'.....t...' -!.....,- -!--;,,,11 - -s--7.,,f7! .. . :. - 7•2.--:'- .Z.:4.--',-:. •••• '.. --'..••1.:' . •i-• ,-;,-. -•--••., •!.,..-4!• ...-• .ii!!...r.' •'""•''';‘,:•-•... .. ;,:',:t....'.7.•'•!!J•••'!'"ki!‘7 ..1.1.,:)!•-•'i'... ! , ••""-- -• . .,..•..,\)„.."4._; •,..:,.......,..„.-:.-2:,..... ...,...,-..,:.3%, /-.:..v.,..,..;...,.•.,F.A4 !"..4. .„., ..,1‘ . .., ...k, . , .,f.y..„,...,•..• ..-- ., ••.• -.„ I.-!•47S.•.:;.::'",-,. ',, ,-..-:-.-4. -••••••;. 0.• :;,-., . '•••,, .•• • ' . :.•,.:•,7, :, •- ...... .., • ....---- ----,.....,_,,„, k.:,..7.,r,,,,„..0. „...Ircr...t,..„....... .,_ . .. ... ., . _ , ,. _, •- • , ' i kY-- •-•••^ - •,•• •'-?• .0" . . . %,•.7...•'•.•;•:',•;',,-. •'• *.';..."---• I.i1.770,_":.-..,... . ,^;',...7.,.7,•.• •,. ‘' , ......,,,.1.. ..... •t?' , .:.7',,,L.:7.'..."...'',.....,.., '1,V:.,..,;',Zie•C, '• ....*A,.....,+'i..i.l.' i"'“kii...:'''',G:',/■......"....''.•,:,... . L......,;,,.,L.,,..s..t ,., ,.;4 :•i,.,.ti,,, . ,. . .V,,., . ,".L.,,... _ ._... , , ,. •,,. ..,.. .. ..r, .'.,`, .. , . „. t . , '•.••:';'•,'"•:";..:.'••.,••••''. '''.,%,-... .P`-tet 'itt'-:. - •. . .,%•41-- .94 ' :.--!,-.•;•••• •=,::•...14::',.•,-..„,••I \.:‘ ; ., se... 4•' • ' • .. ... „.. . • :;,•.=;.'],...:;•,,,i .,'' ,..',...*:'7.4.',.. .:..7,''".....„',"..,,,.. •,..i.''5: •4111.6.i.$,.-.........,... i..':',.9:-.....-'..'-'7'.' '.';.-4.'i,•\ 'Ir . . ,.. . .......... .„,...„.,,,.: 1,;,.,,.„7.7.,,.,..; • •",'".••.''' .1,....„..C-4.1.•T...:‘••••: -..-•:'$'''..r.*'....' .4.4:5.,' •-•' • '•••.::•.. '.-,•'''•, ..•:-..'....:.'_.•;.:.. .1••■'....,:,FILl.,. .;',.'i.',..':•,'' .k.;'!„,..•,Ze.-zi, ,.. ,...,!...„•-,•<:..,-.,-.-,..1,'.!',...'.'.,..,..-j_tfl_;;,-, ''.,,e• ",.. \ .'',1....• :1;.;'.-:.„..i, . , &•••••I'"- . ..r••:-'.••;-• ,---..- .':-••.•••; f•-:'.. ."i''''''.- 4.- • " 'C.:*-q!..";•,..- 'Y'' • ,..:3.1 ‘, ,..,.,,,,,,;,.t,.. ..-• . :•••.:......„?....::..,•:11/c.•AT-,.-:-!-- •-' .,.;.,•?, ..z.;,,....,T.Fe:;:tii... ''.'•:t-;•..,-.;,-,..,:-.: •-:•.::::q.4::.4.:;;-c.-:_''.. ' .1---77:::" . • • '..'.•2-:••.:• ..•'. .••:;`;V-Oe,'''-; . ' •4.-. - ..:. ••••.... :.:.:,-•:: .••••• .:., : -,:•,7.?5s?. .-.-v•,-•• ,, .,T• -•,-- ,-• • , .v... 7,..•.,....-: ::-...••• ::•••:::4"q',Y.:7,,". ,;,. ...1 ',- -i.•,-:.; ...... .':-.f.'' -:-7",•'•-' , :•-14,97* !!- \ -''• 47.1. • i- '••••,-,'7... .7•! •:''.:.-;i:,'i:',':Y.••14.»• •,.ut'l '''•••.' ..-.. ';'..'',..,..,:.•"••• ''.4.t'!!:•!--!•••••• •• ••!ifiv --%!'•!'* .'• '. \-;y• '.7.--.•.,.., - ":,.••-/ • ••:..t.,;, ,i',-`•'•'"! .:'•"44-gf.;,-;-.•'..-,'-....-•::::;:.i•!•Ti...,1•••;•;11W' "'• ".'••'''..: ' ..,..•'-•''' \ ;'*!, !:•'.:!''''';;!-;•..""-:'.:' • . ____, ...... ::,..,...;„ ..,.,•. : .., .".1-. ••,..:!•:.:.. !■•:".. ",„4.2. •.., !tzi :.,7,•;,...e... it...A,.-....A..-37,...-.M., •--t.;.!E,:.:, ... .?,..4-•.'.'•!!• ..---- •• s., '-;:.-...;!!!:.!... ..-,...,' I ''..:•. .,• •••••":.. -•.■.:.••'•;.4•,:.s. '7 • . ..•.- ;P.-.--...J.,•f7":7-1.:07474-LiP'''..14:ti-- ";.,/..V• '.11m.'''':•`-'.-.:,'i / '•• • • - . --F.',....,&_;-•;•,1• i .1".,3•1 .•.0.-„:3.,.07..-;;;',.z;• '•'', .. :••L ? ;•- .;.••,‘ ''''‘''f•;:z-"p'ai't?:..-V.- -•!•ti.,?•4!'v-'4.'•V1-''''■• -•'-';•' / . •' •••••-'• --•••\ •:':.:47.!..ii:-. u..,2■'''• t ''••••'•••!...":":•7;k-;•:!:;fi••• ;,'; ..,w•':.;7•?..._ • .•''.'44. ''g.tj,' -;':,:.!W,....,..,4•Mt14,111 iCf-'''.i• 7-41 / '''...•:.-•':. .: •''.,I '"A""7-1'i•Y,./ •'' •*•••••••'•:•.1.':•-''t'••••• i'.1-.11.47.4';‘'' ''N'''''':•• • • . ••:. •,.;• ... . ........i.f...,,aris4-, ••• :.,•-:.:•„,..,-,,,.•2...y,...k,,,,:'.'• :.• .:•,,,...-i,::,...,. •••,• g ..,.-: ,.,:....,.?:::;. .41,,,ip:,,,e.,4.5,,•,,,,,,•:,-.-- ... -,1?...'•:- ., ••' ---- - .,• . . •-•-,•.•,,.• , . • ••• •.:•••-•...14'.. ,7,-.:.,,4414:„- . •.;•',.•".•-,,••••?•'-' ' .... .4.. ,,,..,-..„..,i.„.....„„ ,-,71,:-.,,,,„•4J....,..,,,...„:4••.„-2:• ./ . ••••. .• ..•.,‘.. . ..--,,..•.•. 7 1, ".:.;.1.,_!,--.-!!!.:-.,/ . ' _.•••:.7.•;-! !..-7,..i.f,...:•",".4,;x:,,,A..2-•v.V3?.! • .12-7•“;:„,!!",•;.t.' ,,,,. ...t..:!.• --,, .41.--- . ...:. ,,•• ... .... . .:... -4-..,.. ,......2......„,... .! ... .........;..-...,%,,,,,...,-..,!. f.,..t.:.. ..564,.."'_:„•;,, „..,..., -.......,.4,..---,*164, ..!1.....---,. -....,,,g,.!'5',-2 ILI. ••;:r.......;:•::"--...ii, ,-•••,'T.'"„'"!...,•,;;0,.... ..,,,,,. 4... , ,....... . ..,.',7..•if...-.,!••••;:..;.!:;,i!j",:‘,:i,!..-i.....,e._'..!4:.;..•,F,,, l',."°- '.:-'.,.„:•...;'':.:.:.';4' ....4".'74•V''.. *,..-v,i1...q.•: .:7•.. . :•-1--',•"..:'.,.- '2`-:.-'.-...Y 1-... •' '• ,. •=• '•••...:".-:.:••;:.:1-•-,?4,"..1'..-.4 t:'• ' • -tr. - • ...•''•,■..;•;•••••:•.-.-.....,,,-,A1,7;-**;%-t:.'141..: '')',.•,. .. '...2"• • ,:: .."..'...•••','•-••• ','1'..-..'''P' , . "'.:.:•''.."'.';-••• - .„;,'"..i''."'. li'A"....''..°.,'''^; _A'a'4.14-' • ' ..-,.'•'[!••• '''•''''';''t.':•'"-7:',V:ZAV;•.',. "''-&`■.1,,1:4;'e.:... El•IfJ )> XIZ . : '.1f 'Hal < -•E' CO CO U., 6- ,., : • n• •mr 0 ■-• 0 V, 7 w 17 D ig a 1 I _._... _._.________•--- -----—• .„— "a- . -----.., -, ( , s..!„..-. ,..- — • --,, l' ..t.. THE DANIELS GROUP LLC 1 401i/1)•.‘c,,,h4.Kaki.U.(' ,--•••• 4,, .... ,,,,n/mx. • -: "ar-"1 LOWER EIRIDGG ROAD TRACT g';: :-,',.-t-'" -'•' ' i-. 4 • - 0 ' w...t. 1 , 1. "' . ' ,--!,• r,,. • ,- ,.,-;.■: I [unapt 4+tur - BRunc.r. AC.TIA! aii.k• .• -• • - : I',IOC ..— .. Dial-Deschutes County Property Information 1/3/18,10:04 PM Dial Links: Dial Home Dial Help I Deschutes County Links: Home Other Property Applications Other Online Applications Deschutes County Property ry 6T Information Electrical Permit details for account #164668 The Deschutes County Community Development Department is responsible for land use and permi for properties in the County's jurisdiction. Contact this department if you need additional information or if you have questions. Account Information Mailing Name:LOWER BRIDGE ROAD LLC Map and Taxiot: 1412000001505 Account: 164668 Situs Address: 10000 NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY,TERREBONNE,OR 97760 Tax Status:Assessable Electrical Permit Details Permit Number:247-E101174 Application Date:05/22/2008 Permit Name:FRANKLIN S NOLAN REVOCABLE TRUST Issue Date:05/22/2008 Contractor Name:GOWDY BROS ELECTRIC INC Final Date: 12/09/2008 Status:Expired Building Class:Residential Use: IRRIGATION Class of Work:New Construction '� Linkfet PennnTENON•E- Service Description: 200 AMPS OR LESS/SERVICES/FEEDERS: INSTALLATION,ALTERATION OR RELOCATION EACH WATER OR SEWAGE PUMP OR IRRIGATION CIRCLE Inspections : 12/09/2008 In' . Comments:GC Permit ex fired b s stem ate: In tials: ED Comments:4210 Service change--Insp Completed :Approved In 1 Comments:4220 Electrical Service"SEE CORRECTION NOTICE AT JOB SITE 1. PROVIDE AFC. 2. PROVIDE INFORMA e DELTA OR WYE.3.HDPE TO BE CERTIFIED 353.6&ORS 479.610.4.POST SIGNED PERMTI AT PIVOT. -- Insp Cancelled Denied THE INFORMATION AND MAPS ACCESSED THROUGH THIS WEB SITE PROVIDE A VISUAL DISPLAY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE,EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ASSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA,DESCHUTES COUNTY MAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT,SEQUENCE, ACCURACY,TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.DESCHUTES COUNTY EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING,WITHOUT LeA TATK)N,THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.DESCHUTES COUNTY SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSE!).DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DECISIONS MADE OR ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BY THE USER OF THIS INFORMATION OR DATA FURNISHED HEREUNDER. 02016-Deschutes County.All rights reserved_ 's. hops://dial.deschutes.org/Real/PermitDetails/184888?permitID=247-E1O1174SpermitType-Electrical Page 1 of 1 I DATE: 're 7 1983UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A "NCY SUBJECT: Deschutes Valley Disposal Site FROM: Phil Wong Superfund S Ma ement i r i TO: Al Goodman Oregon Operations Office Following are my comments on the cleanup plan .for Deschutes Valley as proposed by PCC. 1. ) There are several areas of judgement that-will be applied where there is no criteria or provision for consultation with state of EPA. These areas include the 'area of concern' in phase I step 07 and the extent of soil removal in Phase II. These points should be clarified. 2. )There is no provision for the sampling and monitoring of the groundwater. This should be required if DEQ expects to give a release for the property. I would suggest that the release be conditional so DEQ could come back later if the problem has not been solved. I 3. ) I assume that all the companies named in the plan 'are authorized to haul , treat or dispose of hazardous wastes. 4. ) What level or oversight will be maintained by State? Call if you have any questions. Thanks for the chance to comment, I'm sorry that this is late. i i ! . $ ilvt MI r$' t i ii) 1 . OCT 317983 Gaon UPeratl EP-. EGI pry X" t r E E EPA Farm 1320-6(Rev.3-76) .. r�?ti_ w ..f S " --io, s'' .Sy s 4 4--- �!`«>ti 1. :-:. 4z,..„,.5*,*:;:.-;'„1•••4�-; x •3';.r,+-7? Y 7 .r. -• y. .4.-t ;r w+•• ...r.,_ — ..7.,,,4:4-.... 97.7,r _•.,..,�._7- v.. :xr-:ir`t 1-11 t•. ..' y.. ' •' .r..,-''C!+dj�! :F...' ...i +tiheaw • •w^yt0['". ,r.,c6;. •[f - •:� 'G +1 `• ••^y.,-- :— ,,:r. - •:r:._..,:.,r-.."'-•- s.k:."�x`, TY �„,„.„0.6a,_,. :•: cam`.. -^ i , ��.' rr ., _.. ... •✓ 1 r° [,/'j Milt' ! `-V\ J / `r 132 o - -ter' •` • •► -■ 6• r r N s?•. 2.-:. • 9 ]qty FiU& r 6 _. • a•_ ) . .. 2.p ' • 1...., . , h � Y'..,,,, . r •/ (?_ , 7-- ---- .. . • • ,, :: .. .... . ., _ . . r% • i 1 ` i• .•ttiip Mine 1; n /l ssb ` ► ,,1.4--..•--- # /r/ Att 4.. 1A - r a x+ EST a MaERT .,Q �rrr 4.• - ' i ...term''14 $ .. .r*` - ` � I r�l �. '�^-SJ ;-0gfla] �. Pr+)C ei� I r 1+ 1.'' .em 2 •f ► Mie t f � Folette 71 •� +hy • T.t utta i -� �.. •+r+r _ s , i - --�� •_r_ a-ST, p M RIP 1HINE Tank ',\ .." S�'HV 1 - :- $ r / 2 - / L ,,eft *4,0,Q-7-'6,._:=... y: if'. ��� - Pp, ��'n i ' <'`.. �. '� 7ssc �O'� 1.._< - — RD D - r ii 0. ' - ��—I a '•\ / .‘ � - f � = iG L? ,a•/ rr ♦ y-_ . / _ 3 r�; � s..� 4:dto ac_/rr ? r �sr'"' :\f rr • _ ' o u P+/t� �-.r co ' ..e rto&f_r106j° / O f• / __ / ( ..:..i- f (r•.!.�l "J 1 fig. Q" �. �... .1 • /,,•-...„___/_?1,!: ....7 :--- ; •—• - ---,I.:4' •-•• ' 2 •/ 1 +. :...,:,,....1',,-,..//... ..: ,,,,,",.:-.,-.1!:-//-7,•-• ../---,4-',.,,/4,,;/-,../....;,',',.'/,;t'.1,..,.r...,./-., l'.:- . / rf ,,p .fI �r 6" / _ .:•:•,:•, 1,. r r J.,-/1:3-C, 19- ./*/' --;--/-::--./.,-----"/ r . / i . r^2i/6 I--- - i rq ',/••••-'1 . /4 6' .'; ';::62,L.. .. .. . •- / ' i r�. I r /^'J N i 'mil f"./ �r rr i, r+ \ l ` lr° r_ �i}r • i' 1 1 ` r ../ r :.)S,_,,i '''.' l' ______ ,fr 4 .- "---.'". 1: r 1 fl 7 i i :cI �‘: , 15 ,,•* Warm 5prings�� ;;:r." �{ ---a . ;, impermeable 4y �� Barrier 1., ,I. rte'" Felton Dam ,.iia I,I My (/ � � �c Madras i ��i� ■Raund Butte Darn '� , ...-. . 4( • * Metolius Chief area of y ; � a _`"' Ground-Water #t i� >��-�:'' � Culver . « . Discharge \ I - ,,it / ( :,.! 1 1 4) ‘14) ).... 1 i il j / y /� Terre bonne td i n' Sisters Stk. 4," 1 1, 1 ii vc Redmond t- ' X, Cline Falls + T 11 11 - - Tuma 10 1 T rte, I t „ �... :)-:. Bend ,;i 3 T t r N 1 a'� tri r Benham Falls 0 10 20 mi. See vas --7/-0,02.7 9 5,0.0 F,f-y /9d8 FIGURE 4. --MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA SHOWING CHIEF AREA _ �&r.4. • OF GROUND-WATER DISCHARGE. ARROWS INDICATE GENERAL DIRECTION OF GROUND WATER -MOVEMENT. i f i. 1 RE: THE 21 ACRES THAT WAS TO BE RECLAIMED BY THE CURRENT MINE OWNERS The county cannot rezone a portion of land that is illegal to mine on, per state law and forgive the illegal act because of the rezone. g g ecau 5,000 loads were taken for county road maintenance. This soil was illegal for the mine owners to take and illegal for the county to accept free of charge. According to DEQ and DOGAMI,this portion of illegally mined area must be reclaimed when mining ceases. Mining ceased in 2006. SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTATION. 1 Liwpaiu'?,1 91 cieology ana n4!ne •I Industries /.$ --,"1-e04..,:_ . 1534 QUEEN . .VE. SE, ALBANY,OREGON 97321 'PHONE (503) 967-2039 P 1FL 601.0501121:1T ( ato.suoc + REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION I Frank Nolan, Bob Riemenschneider I.D. #09-0036 & Norman Wiegand 2276 W Highland Dicalite Pit Redmond, Oregon 97756 Sec.9-10,15-16,114S,R12E 1 - Deschutes County 1 DATE OF INSPECTION: October 11, 1988 1 I was accompanied on this inspection by Gene Moore. Mr. Moore reported that he has a contract with the permittees to 1 i remove stockpiled rock and also to produce additional aggregate' products at this site. Mr. Moore was informed that this site was not in compliance with state reclamation laws. Because of an insufficient bond, the permit was not re-issued when the landowner assumed the reclamation obligations on January 26, 1988. Mr. Moore reported that the various stockpiles of scalped material and product scattered around this large mine site will be recycled as much as possible and combined into one stockpile area on the southern boundary of the disturbance. Where smoothing can be completed at this time and there is no more rock removal necessary, topsoil will be respread. e IHouse Bill 2039 which became effective July 1, 1987, requires 1 this agency to assess a $100.00 inspection fee when mining is I conducted without a valid operation permit, mining is conducted 1 . outside of the permit area or when a surface mining operation has 1 been abandoned. I Consequently, the $100.00 fee must be submitted within 30 go i days of receipt of this report. A I 'ncrease of $4000__Is �1 1 aired before the permit can be issued plus a perm[renewal fee off$38T5.00. If these requests are not completed within this 30 day period, legal action will be initiated immediately. c. 1 1 ,- ki 3?)tt --....,\ I/ Iklf) ( '''_:, //;) 1 i inspected by E. FRANK SCHNITZER Signature t �ra,,, \5- /4 ' Title_ RECLAMATIONIST MINED LAND RECLAMATION SMLR.i Rtv.1/26/67 l i BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER Applicant: Robert L. Rienenschneidcr, ) Prank Nolan, Norman Weigand,) AFFIDAVIT and Fred G. Gunzner ) STATE OF OREGON ) ) se. County of Deschutes ) I, Frank Nolan, after being first duly sworn, depose and say that; 1. I am a co-owner of the property which in the subject of the above-referenced zone change application. 2. The property which is the subject of this application was mi property (tax lots 1503 and 1505, which are not covered by this zone change application) and put the rest in "reserve" until the aggregate was needed. As set forth elsewhere in the application, the other applicants and I feel that the aggregate is needed at this time. 5. Since approximately 1976 1 have provided free of charge both Deschutes County and Jefferson County with sand and gravel for their road maintenance. This aggregate was { taken by the counties from the property covered by this application, which is presently zoned Surface Mining Reserve. I also have provided free aggregate to many of the farmers in the area for their road maintenance. 6. I flake this affidavit in support of the above- referenced zone change application from Surface Mining Reserve to Surface Mining. DATED this p�y day of April, 1985. F�iro SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this l Y k day of r April, 1965. }� • Notary Public for Oregon 's my Commission Expires: /o -7J17 I I f 2. AFFIDAVIT Exhibit 'E" I 1 Departmek._ of i3eology and Miners. ..naustries f f 1., 1536 QUEEN AVE. SE, ALBANY, OREGON 97321 PHONE (503) 967-2039 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION Frank Nolan, R. Riemenschneider ID No: 09-0036 N. Wiegand Site: Dicalite Pit 2276 W. Highland Legal: S9,10,15,16,T14S,R12E Redmond OR 97756 County: Deschutes DATE OF INSPECTION: October 7, 1992 I I was accompanied on this inspection by Frank Nolan and also by Dave Leslie from Deschutes County Community Development. This was a routine inspection. From April 1992 there is an outstanding request from DOGAMI to submit current photography so that the pre-72 disturbance can be compared to the existing disturbance to enable a bond calculat' . This is a large site and much of it pre-dates 1972 and the reclamation act. However, there was some expansion noted outside .. the 1972 boundary during this inspection particularly on the east side of the permit area. VW! IMMOMMINMEMEMMOMM fit•- continues to be operated on bQth sides of the county road. i The a`irk 6� of the cou,.wy road is currently being mines by Gene=.." - and Scott Moore. _The–area -west_.of the---county. -roar--Dt besq-- `-i en.e'crea -out:o -stockpuies and ar.so `gavel is o inq extz acted, -k rank t1o.Lan reportatt t rat'retly iicra,L ianid was the most recent operator to remove gravel. from the western areas.—This activity-dcctlrmd°tEis- rast--summer: _-.Given the amount of, historic and recent mining on this property, there are ample,',opportunities to complete some reclamation . and reduce the reclamation liability_at the site., Mr. Nolan is requested"to suTimit a recent photo within the next 30 days so that the bond can be reevaluated. Page 1 of 1 c: Deschutes County Planning Department DEQ - Bend _ ODFW - Bend SWCD - Bend .- Fred Gunzner E. Frank Schnitzer Inspected by . _i,_._ �__._ ___-__.. Signature ..._...._,eadR'�.--- ________ _. _ EFS/cc:10--16-92 Reclamationis Title_. _____.__. _..,._ .,,__.__._.._,_ ______- . MINED LAND RECLAMATION SMLR-s Rev.W20I91 _ ._. -- .� 10004/004 State of Orrj.vn Department of Geology and Mthersl industries • 1536 QUEEN AVE.SE ALBANY,OREGON 97321 PI.HONE(503) 967-2039 • REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION F.Nolan,IL Rieruex>schneider,N. Wiegand ID No: 09-0036 227 +W.Highland - Dicalite Pit Redmond OR 97756 Section 9,20,15,16,TNp 14S,Rafge 12E Deschutes Coven Interim Reclaimed Acres 0 Concurrent Reclaimed Acres o DATE OF INSPECTION: July 28, 1994 - - was accompanied on this routine inspection by Scott and Gene Moore of E.A. Moore Company. I had left a message at Diatomaceous Earth,Inc. for Mr.Prank Nolan,but did not hear back This site is located approximately 5 miles west of Terrebonne on the Lower Bridge Road. This site is visible from the road and is adjacent to the Deschutes River. The permit area encompasses two distinct mine areas_ The area east of Lower Bridge Road is under a lease agreement since 1988 with E.A. Moore, where sand,gravel, and topsoil material is mined. The area west of Lower Bridge Road is currently being mined for dicalite material by Highland Construction,and gravel and soil stockpile removal by Rudy Starr. The east area is actively being rained. A screen and crusher is on site and was in operation. Scott Moore accompanied me on a tour of the east area. EA. Moore came into this site in 1988 after several other operators had already mined material. Past photos indicate this area has been cleaned up considerably since 1988. Future mining plans for the east area includes: sand and gravel removal from the center portion; and rock salvage rm.=a beamed area south of the current mine area and the area north of the plant. Past operations disturbed a large area but did not extract all available rock The B.A. Moore operation proposes to recover all available rock by screening out overburden/topsoil material, sand and dicalite. This screening process will provide an abundant supply of final reclamation cover mamerial in addition to the approximate 10,000 cubic yards of cover material currently stockpiled. Page 1 of 2 c: Deschutes County Planning Department DEQ-Bend,Central Region ODF"W- Bend SWCD -Bend Inspected by Ben PAfk11JLk)iodic Signature Title Reclau►atlaxtiat gAlus/ca:08/02/94,09-009$0734.ir Harrod Land Reclamation 3 5 -- ..,...- etioai/ooi. F. Nolan,IL Riernenschneider,N. Wiegand ID No.09-0036 July 28, 1994 Page 2 of 2 Based on the proposed mining of previously disturbed area, only a very small portion of this site is ready for final reclamation,the area on the extreme west end. Final grading was in progress in this area and material was being pulled back and sloped away from the edge, thereby preventing the chance reject material might fall downslope towards the river. Based on the amount of material to be processed and the area to be reclaimed, there appears to be adequate amounts of topsoil material to complete final reclamation at this site. This is a dry operation and there was no evidence of storm water runoff. £.A. Moore had stabilized a slope on the eastern boundary of this site that had had material sidecast over the embankment towards the river by a previous operator_ E.A. Moore has effectively worked with the local utility comvany to replace utility power poles that traverse the permit area so that unsightly,islands would not have to be left to insure stability of the power poles. The western site of the permit area was active also. Highland Construction was stripping overburden material off diatomaceous earth and material was being screened. Approximately two new acres appear h:,have been impacted by this activity. It did not appear topsoil material was being stockpiled at this site. Based on past photography,stockpiles that had existed south of the active D.E. pit have been remove It is questionable as to whether or not there is sufficient soil/overburden ma p on c estern operation for firatl reclamation purposes. Future bond increases may be necessary for the west side to cover the cost of hauling soil fines to this area from the east side operation where the B.A.Moore Company is screening and producing the material. This operation on the west side of the road is also a dry operation with no evidence of surface water impacts. Current operations are well away from the river. Concern was expressed over an increase of the reclamation bond in 1993. It was explained that statewide, reclamation bonds are being increased to reflect the true costs associated with final reclamation at mire sites. Based on a June 9, 1993 letter from DOGAMI to the permittees, the expansion of the diatomaceous earth operation on the western boundary of the permit area was noted that has significantly increased the area to be bonded outside the 1972 boundary. Additionally, a reclamation plan for the expansion area on the western boundary was requested from the permittees to be submitted to this Department by November 3, 1993. This reclamation plan must be submitted prior to new permit issuance. The 1 994 Annual Report And Renewal form must also be completed and submitted to this Department. On July 13, 1994,DOGAMI received notice that the reclamation bond from CHIC would be expiring on August 11, 1994. Please provide this Department with documentation that this bond has been renewed or alternative security has been obtained. Please provide this documentation of reclamation bond, the reclamation plan for the expansion area, and the Annual Report and Renewal form by August Z9, 1994. 1 A i I 6 i I . ; •_____.._ _._.. •• _ _ on April 16,-1997� DEPARTMENT Ol= GEOLOGY AND MINERAL _ INDUSTRIES II,LJ1„IL.1Id.I11II,1iII11I --- E.Nolan, R. Riemenschneider,N.Wiegand MINED LAND PO Box 190 RECLAMATION Redmond OR 97756 I RE: 1D No. 09-0036 • Section 9,10,15,16,Township 14S, Range 12E,Deschutes County Site Name: Dicalite Pit Cf�� 'S." S ' )ER Dear Permittee, By authority of ORS 517.880,your operation referenced above,is closed to all surface mining activities, The site shall remain closed until such time as the annual permit fee is paid and the annual report is submitted(copy enclosed), Renewal notices were sent to you December 17, 1996,and February 18, 1997. The permit expired January 31, 1997. Since then,we have heard nothing from you. if this site is not brought into full compliance with the provisions of ORS 517.750 et seq.within 30 days of this notice, you must provide evidence that the required reclamation has been completed or is underway and iwill be completed in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. INo further extractive mining activity or processing or removal of stockpiled materials may be conducted at a this site in the absence of a valid operating permit. Violation of this Closure Order is subject to the penalties provided by law. If you have any questions,please call or write. . incerel , 4 Zhu awn M. Marshall Office Coordinator Mined Land Reclamation c: Deschutes County Planning Department ..,}} DBQ-Bend 47 aftig�t., , IEnclosure-AR&R r': CERTIFIED MAIL 1536 Queen Avenue SE Albany,OR 97321-6687 c 199TOOxa97.Uff (541)967-2039 FAX(541)967-2075 '= '�" Oregon Department of Geology&Mineral Mined Land Reclamation \7?../ John A-Kitrhaber,M.D.,Governor 1536 Queen Avenue SE Albany,OR 97321-6687 (541)967-2039 April 20,2000 FAX(541)967-2075 si E.A.Moore 209 South Third Redmond OR 97756 RE: ID No. 09-0032 and 09-0036 SUSPENSION ORDER Dear Permittee, Authority of ORS 517.$80 closes your operations referenced above to all surface mining activities. The e sites shall remain closed until the annual reports are submitted. Renewal notices were sent to you December 15, 1999,and February 15,2000. The permit expired January 31,2000. A third reminder was mailed March 20,2000,with the annual report forms enclosed. Since then we have heard nothing from you. If these sites are not brought into full compliance with the provisions of ORS 5 17.750 et seq. within 30 days of this notice,you must provide evidence that the required reclamation has been completed or is underway and will be completed in accordance with the approved reclamation plans. `' No further extractive mining activity or processing or removal of stockpiled materials may be conducted at these sites in the absence of a valid Operating Permit. Violation of this Suspension Order is subject to the penalties provided by law. If you have any questions,please call or write. incerely, Dawn M.Marshall Administrative Specialist Mined Land Reclamation c: Deschutes County Planning Department DEQ-Bend CERTIFIED MAIL 1 1 La' 1 L'regon Department of Geology &Mineral Industries Mined Land Reciamaticin John A.Kitahabc,M.D.,C.:00 mm 1536 Queen Avenue SE Albany,OR 97321-6687 (541)967-2039 June 12, 2000 FAX(541)967-2075 Frank Messina RECEIVED Department of Environmental Quality 2146 NE Fourth 200IJ JUN 13 Bend, OR 97701 Eastern Region- Bend Re: DOGAMI ID 09-0036 Dicalite Pit Dear Frank: On May 30,2000 we met with a landowner along Lower Bridge Road regarding complaints against the mine operation conducted by Gene Moore,DOGAMI ID No 09-0036. The mine site is located in tax lots 1501, 1052, 1600,704, 1507, and 1508;portions of sections 9, 10, 15,and 16,T14$,Rl2E Deschutes County. It is understood the local landowner would like to remain anonymous. During this meeting I was handed an unsigned letter with 12 6 g g questions regarding the mine operation. It was decided that answers to these questions would be sent to you and then forwarded on td the landowner_ Following are responses to the questions numbered as they wart submitted. I. The landowners listed on the original application dated 10/26/81 are Robert L. Riemenschneidet, Frank Nolan, and Norman Wiegand,PO Box 190 Redmond, OR 97756. 2. The property boundary corresponds to the DOGAMI permit boundary and encompasses 550 acres, 3. There are no limitations on how many acres may be mined for aggregate or diamataceous earth within the permit boundary. 4_ This site was last inspected in June 1994. Copy of inspection report ikatta6lied to this letter. 5. Based on the 1994 inspection, Mr.Moore had final graded aprroximately five to seven acres at the operation east of Lower Bridge Road. It should be pot that approximately 380 acres of this mine re mined prior to 1972. This means the 380` ores are eat„empt from the reclamation rules and ions.Currently there area mate il 21 oar mine disturbance that are r vired to 0. r. R SrnS toe 1S oat required until man e9- 6. °talc mining is complete the operator has three years to finish reclamation. DOGAMI shall in most instances consider reclamation successful when the revegetation is comparable in stability and utility to adjacent unmined areas. If reclamation i9 not deemed successful and the operator refuses to complete any required additional work,DOGAMI may demand the reclamation bond held for a site and contract the work out. The current bond held for this site is$10,000. Upon annual renewal of 1 the DOGAMI permit Mr.Moore will be requested to increase the bond. 1 Pagel oft 1 / • June 12,2000 Frank Messina Department of Environmental Quality 1. DOGAMI regulates in excess of 800 permitted sites statewide. DOGAMI has five Re iarnationlsts to cover the state. 9. DOGAMI inspections occur during the initial permitting phase and at the completion of mining. At many sites DOGAMI inspections occur annually or even monthly. At many other sites inspections may not occur for several years. When credible complaints are received regarding a mine site DOGAMI wi l schedule-an inspection. Typically a follow up-inspection is conducted if the site is found to be in noncompliance. 000AMI must give reasonable notice prior to an inspection as per OAR 632-030-024. 10. As a result of the May 15th,2000 complaint,DOGAMI personnel met with DEQ personnel and the landowner on May 30.2000. The operator has been notified he must come into compliance with the DEQ air quality rules and regulations. A titneframe for this compliance was issued. I I. DOGAMI does not have a copy of the 1985 site plan review compiled by Deschutes County. 12. DOGAMI does not have statutory authority to regulate hours of operation. This issue falls under the jurisdiction of the courity.,,Them Wilbur conditions to the DOGAMI permit: oiopri. Make a rninimu of oncloaigmanilAygighle to reclaim all post-1 972 lands affected by is mining operation. Not complete excavations which will prevent access to the utility poles unless a written agreement is obtained with the utility company and submitted to DOGAM). iii. Not spoil material along the outslone above the Desh ut River_ _ iv. Contain turbid and sediment-laden surface water runoff on the mine site. Enforcement of any county conditions relating to this operation are the responsibility of Deschutes County. Enforcement of air quality regulations is the responsibility of the DEQ. DOGAMI will schedule an inspection of this operation in the near future. A copy of the inspection report will be sent to DEQ---Bend Please contact me at(54 1) 967-2039 xt, 24 with any further questions. Sin ely, Ben Mundie Reclamationist Mined Land Reclamation Enclosure: inspection Report 07/28/94 aMvsolscnvms, aGDp.ora. poc • • C CONDITIONS: 1. A minimum of 1 ' of topsoil will be available to reclaim all post-1972 lands affected by } this mining operation. 2. Excavations shall not be completed which will prevent access to the utility poles unless a written agreement is obtained with the utility company and submitted to DOGAMI. 3. No material shall be spoiled along the outslope above the Deschutes River. NOTE: RECLAMATION PLANS MAY BE MODIFIED AS PROVIDED BY ORS 517.830(4) AND OAR 632-(30) (35)-035. The conditions of this permit are considered to be acceptable to the permittee unless written notice is received prior to the beginning of surface mining under this permit. Upon receipt of such notice by the Department, this permit is invalid and will be reissued when the conditions in question have been solved. A provisional operating permit may be issued (ORS 517.830(3)) to operators subject to the provisions of OAR 632-30-030(2) pending reissue of the operating permit. - —.. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE, 19 LOTS=Habitat Conflicts — A1119 Lots run to the middle of the Deschutes River and abut: A. Borden Beck Park Wildlife Preserve B. Wildlife Habitat Conservation & Management Program Land C. Scenic River Classification on this Stretch of Wild and Scenic River& State Scenic Waterway D. LM- Landscape Management Zone ABOVE ALREADY EXIST TO PROTECT THE FISH AND WILDLIFE AT LOWER BRIDGE. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND OF THIS HIGHER DENSITY WOULD IMPACT THEIR HABITAT AND IS A DIRECT CONFLICT OF THE RULES THAT GO WITH THE ABOVE. 1 aLy�''Li air! ", �:.a r �^ ''.x^fiq,, , - 1 a , it,. :., b d t IN ,, , x° « ` r ti J l A { 1„ Ma .� dry , Y `.,r ,. y 44.tt.,; 4.,t. 'IF:It 1 ,t1,#;°',''',,,0,fo,'..!,i,44',,,, „1 ....-.4A:..141, 4,,,Ori ot* 'tie, ° /1 t+ a71: •P r� a r I1i 1•.!.(, @" tiR a 1. ,, -, "....■,,,', ..', -,s: ....:','41.,,,,, "141;',7 .,,,,,, . ti. . ...4, ,r"'*- '''. .7:. -,..l''t Al tio. ' y b 7wa�+ x" :' 9 " 4 ' itA, t.„,,,,,,:,,„.1.,,,,, 4,.,,)I., . -7.1.,..« " , '„ '''-P44..* 1, *:.'',''''''....ithor;t:',11P#i44 : .•::;#°471"...':1r1:- x" , *;.;,,,,;tii,„.,. ,,' , . - tom., 6 'h ' v .. . ,,..„ _____, _ ,,,:,.......:,,,, ._„...,.. Mf yln �w± � � i dF$ t 70%,e,, y t iK"M sy .) r Sr 1'P , • " . ,.,„,,,,?f,..„,,,.' ,,,,,:ii.,,040.i ,4, #,..,,,,,, �� e rd w y �� `! �$y f- r,r- CX1"\ .�,li " Pc41 f C1 t1 r�',!yl° "^C'-rl ti y, s � 7 " d` „,4^ - _ 1 t-4 x;a i i'4:,,„«e ,.A ye . ^ ,fir A A' rX"' , C:S�a,,}� ,' Ei i !L^,1 t%3 �c 3 rr!�, a C i �? a 1 l� 4�`( ,L` f r CK� ta1° a t^. u ,. Wildlife Fiataitat Conservation 8 Mgmt.Program,Lot 8 ERF 0 7515 kw �- (:11, mil— ail"\- Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve )�' �n F� — - LaM — fifl �>u'v -I Lot 500&1505 G Su Q- - 1 n i ___� — ���jt.� L�cr, , 1 �w, U� 1 k r r w - .' •• - .aw•„"-g"." .a'. '' "° '"�"ww ) ""a �; w `'� `z 6.tp' — °"^a i C`� 4 frofibli 1.1 , LOCAL PIN 9 - - -• �� r�r " d w "y r ,4.5_949 ;1r4i7 ' °'. . . ... fU aid k9 " , •d '�.A . - lle 11aM 1� -- '4..,' VICINITY MAP 2 APillemile fl 1' �, '"` = 13.84 ACRES FP ;I°* HISTORIC LYNCH AND ROBERTS" SIGN w.: ` 4xJ'. 'IGO. Y. RD RADIUS , w k M q any ,: . i'"' fa + � ,k; • ' t ilt({$' Y 000(1^ ,0 l l i a 17i ar• � r�.1^ 3'MY q, aar { M , r „ ai tu 'P .0.0.,,,,,,,,, . ,,,',„r" Al;04 610;litiroidot.40,' * I d t IJ&° T GREEN = 3.33 A 1 4 wN �• Y , LOWER ROAD$ ,;w F :„ Al Tvvr�►rpv Pa ' 1,4tV'i,411 i ,, "� -<_1 ore. � aa ,� � win ° �' �. w` �C d w� r , W .• a �. d 'm k}" 0,-.c , " i n m11 fia N T ,"' ,� 'M M!i � w'L 4* ; i lea < 10,� � v •,'I, � µ A R 6 b yh t I ,T' �,y�_ ■ Lamm M�W mom_.0 eFPLM.TawY�+ '.&'YM'A!'r•14"612C61.17a 7176 oleo ✓Jrrtx . r ',.., Y 9�1d Tj,. ,of. „ VM yN T r 8,'"1 glir AP} i p •'�' • W rr PMi1C LG P1re.P RK!"D' +., ;*10,.r '0M 66707%-a666 �ili7YKti1 MIMJw k y. I rl atl/M1a q[a W1NLRpw 066%C.:060661"C G .as anesww N[cTM_ 1000, we tioNe&G "age akAalliaal7 P6 � y Y ty � ^ M� ,! y y; .6677/4..0"77 rluY .OW waCTM F ' ' °I COMO*AMA TRACT lt / , 1 i - 1yb .7 , "mt.r! '4. 4*- f, w A ` ' q",+ I i P iRt7 I1d1oimaa[rgL:OtYAacoo Yu, a .W • R I 1,...,F.A.xLY tll+ JW� '11 V} `44,•7 7:64,71166417 Mien ;� � ` .M TMCaifW...... ,. d , P.Q+j A1M091U.6 rill* i”.77,m4 C 11Mw ,o it 1 x+11166-vy}"+ 06676•07,27606676•07,276416".7a117 6.7077,C716.,6 1 W46,4" ' e PROJECT AREA SUMMARY ` M , LEGEND p a t"4 p d 1M on.NMI, 41A ' .r'wYr rrarn.wsrrrau�cnwwly Lim. orb roaatomi pxauna�o+la wnaYCnm w 1, i ar �'!1ul.•n Axed 'r1PA[r:4cTw „ 7 R[M A�- -- "�""• .—. _ ._. �wrc�ss�n 1.ra7M1uw1,Y 1rimMwswrM K-.aearlww7rrw al,TUC(' w:v=+ a '� + �' r" /ypa6666 1.101,Qat&PCP 11/4140404,11138& Vail..,c.uc ar tp, y " 'i[Y1A91�1GAA711>ML"AtP1Nlf1."�A1 Wir MI PAM HP•ma 07076114001176 :,P11YI1YKlpAtr w� • _.Ar111i1�A,M {91X[i,i�N•'a:l' Mt/WAG.tti,®P&Pail :J•ldMwMp['AadCAllsr �tlOi[.O.p(,.iC®[M1M,1 „x.:i[A Air , y ,, '. Yi#, . 1Aasw1liemw:MOO trlt:'awwcr'wYr awraauraxu,ar+'ua n. axxxa"wwmllclTWr__.-._. p p1 Ad. _ EYM41aGW.1d11.WFARYClp }iflCND.M1P ;• n1r+1L�,�raln.a[MYUClxmxr R..rww MN,!1101911 W[A arm �,,� ;� . :� ., ac lute wrnrR.lvo+ wicsrmxawwr.■ LAND USE CONFLICT-WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION- EXISTING PROTECTIONS: THE PROPOSED 19 LOTS ARE ACROSS FROM AND ABUT SEVERAL WILDLIFE PROTECTIONS-ALL 19 LOTS ARE IN CONFLICT OF THESE.(SEE MAP attached). Along the Deschutes River,the properties ACROSS FROM AND ABUTTING THESE LOTS HAVE A WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION IN PLACE THAT PROTECTS WILDLIFE FROM DEVELOPMENT AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS. The 19 proposed lots have a visual impact, a noise impact and more importantly,are against the rules of the current Uses in place THAT PROTECTS WILDLIFE HABITAT.They are: 1. Borden Beck Park Wildlife Preserve:per RAPRD- 6 Borden Beck Wildlif Preserve is a naturally protected area bordering the Deschutes River at Lower Bridge Crossing. 2.Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program(WHCMP) Program under Oregon Fish and Wildlife. Designated Lot 8 of Eagle Rock Estates this wildlife protection and use. Per ► [" r - ' .01 Ir • I 1 - 1 ' u • 1 ` 11 " 1 ' lei • II i The objective of the WHCMP is to preserve, enhance or improve the composition, structure or function of habitat for native wildlife species. and 3. "SCENIC RIVER CLASSIFICATION" UNDER THE STATE SCENIC WATERWAYS PROGRAM AND THE FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS DESIGNATION. Per OAR-Oreaon Administrative Rules, State Scenic Waterways: "Classification of River Areas" OAR 736-040-0040 - (b)Scenic River Areas: (A)Those designated scenic waterways or segments thereof with related adjacent lands and shorelines still largely primitive and largely undeveloped=current classification THE CURRENT PROPOSAL GOES AGAINST THESE GOALS& USES ALREADY IN PLACE I F{F{ 6 / 6-K-1%1y WILDLIFE HABITAT PROGRAM http://www.dfw.state.or.usllands/whcmphndex,asD Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program(WHCMP) • WHCMP PrQram Br9chure (pdf) The Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program(WHCMP)is a cooperative effort involving state and local governments and other partners to incentivize private landowners to voluntarily conserve native wildlife habitat.The Oregon Legislature created the WFICMP to offer a property tax inventive to •rivate landowners who want to provide wildlife habitat on their •ro•=rties inst- d of,or in addition lo, -rm ng, growing 'm.:r . •t - ., • 1° -, • .=r t - r+- 1 an. subject to an approved wildlife on an nagenibnt plan receives a wildlife habitat special assessment,where property taxes are assessed at the relatively low value that would apply if the land were being farmed or used for commercial forestry. -___ The ••',...1, - of the WHCMP to preserve,enhance or improve the composition a ..cture or function of habitat for native wi • - species. e ' . * - suppo '. I e e"• o ♦or... ftr.ieoftwr<- u is on rm ng and expanding voluntary conservation efforts. Tax incentive programs aimed at improving wildlife habitat are tools used to promote and support voluntary conservation actions taken by landowners. For detailed information on the statutes and rules related to the Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program see Oregon Revised Statutes 308A-400 Oregon Administrative Rules 635-430. Summary of Steps to Determine Eligibility for Participation In the Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program: *For complete details on how a landowner would enroll in the WHCMP,please review the WHCMP Landowner Guide. `Please note, ODFW staff may choose to limit the number of plans approved each year due to workload constraints(ORS 308A.412(4);OAR 635-430-0050(6)). 1 Confirm your eligibility with a Participating County - If you are a landowner in a participating county,you may be eligible. Not all counties are currently participating in the program and only those counties currently participating are t able to enroll landowners. I - To qualify for a wildlife habitat special property tax assessment,the property must be I located within an area or zone designated for participation in the WHCMP.Applicants I must have county or city planning department fill out an Eligibilly,Ledificagniorm to I confirm that the property is eligible for the program. i o Complete the Landowner Interest Form and submit it to your local ODFW district office ' with the signed eligibility form.These forms will help the local ODFW biologist determine . i if your property has the wildlife habitat characteristics necessary to qualify for enrollment in the WHCMP 1°11-- i 2 Develop a habitat plan )1)1*r- i o The landowner, in conjunction with a cooperating agency must develop a wildlife habitat 1 conservation and management plan that specifies the conservation and management NAIR practices that will be conducted to protect and restore native habitat and native wildlife species. Cooperating agencies include the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. ! 1 Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Oregon State f i University extension service, soil and water conservation district, or qualified contractor.A 1 site visit is usually required prior to drafting a plan. a An example of a complete WHCMP plan can be found here:Sample_W CMP Plan. ? Please refer to the Landowner Guide for a complete list of information required in a i habitat plan. i i , v 3 1 I `' e_f2 " .b K-1 z C4,444 i ' IlI.Oregon Scenic Waterway Program r{ir0� i"tip _._. C _ T- �_ _ ! ., I r J' (9'r 4 ter'• C?2w ,----�._-- 7.4..2l - _,i._. "w _^ --- t nv --1 .s=- / _t '-4 I , ..- 1,,..7.71-"-- •,; ,.rrrW - "'`'j,•�1+,"'v.• - y -»� • _ 11 L A„v ` Q Y• { t r k -_ __ __._ _.p rte^ 7�` J .. °" ° +.r - r r T .. Y`•4 y r s f .,T eta`' t ' i- r• 1 1 _ .{yam, r �T� rcl VA ti.y1 _ •I?_.'1 � �' r�� �� 'I 1 .awl F :� f `.' 1 YI j r: " �_ Mai t �_ ".___, I t _i 'I ,,....0 iii....ett ULM/ ' I .. li 1' jv .t w i - R. A �" C � lR4r II � �� % j� W r i rr . ` , n r , r T. ^ir, !- f 4, —w /"r € ., I r ' . r I I ; p. ;1114, t j: L'.' I`. , I ...,; Imo_. :;, t�, , " •-I-_� a _ " 4, _ .'-.i Ik "7-�.'4i.._`E -ti--,-. _ , z I ; ' r• ,_i I I pp r vim_ y J� i F I •A j I, ..,„...4 sh, .'—�:?: ., ' - .^ _' ( ..,,=-7-11 -�1 L.'- ! . r 4't, 1. _.,.1 4Of. '4\ l•-, `"?, ,5 J -_-' I • IF 1-1. - ; �"- ,. 1. t d F. � - .�� • - - Sal h 1 :Yy ,,- r^ 'L � ,rf "` ( �,<w r ��'� 1 44 1 r , �V'rte -c ''-•4-. �` ,.. tan.:. ` `.� ,I .. ..I , I ~•ter .,�� >r I tr. , I4^ I_/ � 4 1 ._ n . ^ ! _ T— ,4. ,., ! t "'�.�,..a 11 50 Middle Deschutes/Lower Crooked , Wild and Scenic River Management Plan H.Management Plan it J State Scenic Waterway Boundary 4 The State Scenic Waterway boundary on the Middle Deschutes River will remain unchanged as a 1 uniform 7\4 le boundary can either side.af the river in Segments 3 and 4. Public land managers l and private landowners within the corridor boundary are responsible for complying to the State i /Scenic Waterway Program regulations and guidelines as discussed in Chapter 3. 4 V Wild and Scenic Rivers' Bounder Delineation Process The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act(Section 3(b))specifies that after a river is designated,the agency charged with its administration must establish detailed boundaries delineating the land area within the river corridor that will be managed under the Act.The Act specifies that the area within each corridor should not average more than 320 acres per river mile on both sides of the river,placing i the boundaries an average of 1/4 mile f •ri r river •n -. . . This allows for irregular lboun• .3 • et i er site o e river.Boundary delineation decisions are made on the basis of topography, location of outstanding resources, land ownership and use patterns, and public i comment. # Early in the planning procesajLM held six public scoping meetings to ensure full public participation during preliminary boundary delineation.The preliminary National Wild and Scenic River boundaries as shown in the Draft Management Plan and Environmental Assessment,were i developed as a result of these meetings.The boundaries are irregular in shape to include as many of 1 the areas as possible that contain or directly support the identified outstandingly remarkable values associated with the river.During the public review period for scoping issues many people, including work group members,requested that the preliminary boundaries be reconsidered. A Visual Resource Management(VRM)study of river segments 3,4,and the Lower Crooked segment was conducted by theme between June and September of 1991.The ose of iii. l study was to determine the overall scenic u,as i e 1i er se! en ,n provide additional orma ion or establishing new corridor boundaries and monitorin- sc- _ _ _ Results of the VRM study along with the information gathered o • - y •u . •ing and significant resource values provided the basis for delineating final boundaries as shown on Map 2. I 1.• i 1 i 9 i i gi 5 i 1 42 Middle Deschutcs/Lowcr Crooked i Wild and Scenic River Management Plan i i A. To preserve and enhance the open spaces, rural character, scenic values and natural resources of the County. FINDINGS:The subject property is a former mine site which is exempt from most reclamation or other regulatory requirements requiring any revegetation. As a result, it has little vegetation and approximately 350 acres of the site consists of exposed diatomite which can create dust during large wind events. The proposed plan amendments by themselves will not alter open spices, scenic values, or spoil rural character, but instead will create an opportunity to redevelop and mitigate existing adverse conditions of the site following historical mining and industrial operations. The present condition of the site adversely affects the scenic value of the area with rusting structures and extensive unrevegetated mined areas. Any future development, not included in this application, would be required to conform to development standards for Rural . Residential (RR-10)zoned lands,that are designed to preserve and enhance the open spaces, rural character, and scenic values of the County.,- Moreover; future development of any structures in the LM zone will be subject to individual site plan review to ensure the protection of the scenic values associated with the Deschutes River. Some neighbors commented that the proposal is inconsistent with this policy because a future planned development proposal could cluster dwellings along the top of the riverbank. The it neighbors asserted that clustered residential development is inconsistent with the local residential development pattern, end nation is EFU- 20. The • •'rd •rees with the Heerings Officerdithis j' .,, .1 • within the area, a • a ann J ! �' .. • • • - • the : • of the lots can errs d tQ m nrmize tet� r visua, , r e •.,cts on neighboring props + owners. ,' , ►j • R t The removal of Site 481 from the County's surface mining inventory would preclude access to diatomaceous earth and aggregate materials on the site. The applicant has argued that there is insufficient remaining aggregate to economically extract, and there is little need for diatomite in • modem industrial manufa hbors dispute this finding, arguing that there are viable manufacturing. �9 Pu m9 r9 9 industrial uses for diatomite, and that the applicant's present desire to convert the land to residential use does not alter the significance of the site for diatomite production-These issues• are discussed in greater depth below. B. To guide the location and design of rural development so as to minimize the public costs of facilities and Cervices, to avoid unnecessary expansion of service boundaries, and to preserve and enhance the safety and viability of rural land uses_ FINDINGS; The applicant argues that the proposal is consistent with this goal because a future developer, and not'the public, will bear costs of extending facilities to the property. Opponents disagree that the extension of public services Is the only consideration under this goal, arguing that it also requires a showing that the proposed rural residential uses 'preserve and enhance the safety and viability of rural land uses." Opponents argue that unless reclamation and remediation measures are included in this approval, neither the neighbors nor the future residents of the site can be assured that the site is safe for development or that development on their properties will remain viable. Public f=acility/Service Availability_and Capacity ZC-08-1/PA-08-1 -BOCC Decision Page 10 of 38 Document No 2009-188 tVt. • . -1TVIREF-7 LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY,OREGON An s � � r •e r s t . lusiv �ilic P.pti"?�x1�N7pIAnl1lrlAfi4!'NfL9''�%iMHIH1� W... Purposes. taN'MINI!NNINM'MM!�7;IAIfip?!h'R,'!:';;iii:!,ygy�!I'°'" v V J H-1/t4j---• (vv-C, afb 1/1 114 V ORDER NO.96-071 WHEREAS,Deschutes County has acquired real properties through real property tax foreclosure and Local Improvement District foreclosure that are located on or adjacent to rivers,creeks and streams;and WHEREAS,Deschutes County has acquired real properties through real property tax foreclosure and Local Improvement District foreclosure which contain significant wildlife habitat; and WHEREAS, Deschutes County through its Comprehensive Plan has recognized and declared the need to protect and preserve public access and land along rivers, creeks and streams and public properties possessing significant wildlife habitat values;and WHEREAS, ORS 275.320 provides that Deschutes County may designate County owned lands as public parks;and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners find that the preservation and protection of certain County owned real properties for public access,recreation and wildlife habitat is in the public interest; now,therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON,ORDERS as follows: Section 1. That certain real properties described in Exhibit"A,"attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein be designated as County Parks for public purposes, pursuant to ORS 275.320. PAGE 1 OF 2-ORDER NO.96-071 (6t26/96) SEp 4 3 an (4e- 0 � CJ s'u Section 2. That said real properties be retained in public ownership and managed t the extent feasible for the enhancement of wildlife habitat and public access. DATED this 26th day of June,1996. 130; RD OF COUNTY CO /MISSIONERS OF;6 ESCH ' ► COU 1,OREGON I . h..! -L.24;.1, I/. CY PA. 'B f :14 EN,Chair Z - 1274 I A T: BARRY - SLAUGH "R,Commissioner • 24ea../22..e( Recording Secretary ROBERT L NIPPER,Commissioner PAGE 2 OF 2-ORDER NO.96-071(6!26/96) V...X.," 1 �, t 40 -,,,,--,-,--- , „,,,,,,,,, 1 1 1 for the highway and 0.80 for the side street based on functional classification and posted speed. There is a programmed ODOT project in 2009 to reconfigure the Lower Bridge Way/97 and 11th Street/97 intersections. While this will improve the operations of these intersections it will not address the capacity issue as the project focuses more on storage issues on the a The traffic analysis at Figure 5 on page 10 indicates a LOS F for Lower Bridge Way/97 in 2022 with the critical move being the left out from Lower Bridge to go north on 97. The development does not add any trips to that failing move_ As Figure 4 indicates, the rune will increase the number of northbound left turns from U.S. 97 onto Lower Bridge , . Way from 11 to 31. The worksheets indicate the V/C of this move"will degradedegradefrom(582 8er existing zoning to 0.85 under the proposed zoning. Based on the e, I would r •m L. --. .I' _ ',• =n"= • ._ _. .. , . provisio .. • �. proposal would have a significant effect on r:nsportation facilities as defined by the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) at Oregon Administrative Rule(OAR)660-012-060(2)(C). If the development is apploieg, the applicant will need to provide mitigation sufficient to rther degr jQn of the intersection as`rge ui t by OAR 660-012-060(3)(c). As. this• -interection is under the jurisdiction of ODOT,_I would recommend deferring to the r state toW be and define a appropn a mitigation. ,,- On March 3, 2008 the Transportation planner added: TIA analysis was done for iirtV, a roximatel 55 units, but in tode 'steer it said they can Iii 74 unit unde t 2 cluster eve opmen f that's true, then the traffic analysis should be resjong to reflect that andthe in ersections r analyzed. - , n• • = •• ential for 74 units re• esents a theoretical ..= .r I. n * Al•,- •f units on . _n . S - ' 7 ii = a. •ticant should provide an analys 21711;y 1 f •. • [ If fewer units are in fact developable, such evidence show• • . presented to the Hearings Officer. DEQ: On February 4, 2008, the Department (DEQ) received your notice for the chance to comment on a proposed land-use zone change regarding the Diatomaceous Earth (DE) Mine site located north of Lower Bridge Way west of Terrebonne. The proposal would change the zoning from surface mining (industrial site) to rural residential. Department staff has reviewed the Burden of Proof Statement. On Page 3, last Paragraph, it states, "DEO visited the site the week of May 8, 2006 and did not have any concerns". While Department staff did visit the site no statements were made about concerns at that time. There are, in fact, a number of issues that should be considered: • Our primary concern regarding the proposed zone change is that when a previous cleanup conduct was on industrial land- use of the property. The proposed action would change the zoning to rural residential. The property owner and developer will need to demonstrate that the . site is cleaned up to the degree that it is suitable for residential land-use. The Daniels Group should conduct additional environmental evaluation of past ---, historical activities (including the dean-up) to insure that the site is safe for ZG07-5 (e 7 of 31 .,...) , July 7,2015 Dear Madame Hearings Officer on File#247-15-000194-CU/195-TP: Rega the Traffic Study R rt comment by lb statin the proposed entrance is on a 4o mph curve that is not correct. After speaking with ODOT that oversees the county on roads,since that curve at the entrance area is not signed at all,it is a 55 mph zone and a"Rural Major Collector"road. Therefore the site distance has to be reassessed based on this corrected information. Note that black and white speed signs are mandatory and yellow and black signs,suggested. Having neither at this S Curve-55 mph.And unsafe for 40 plus vehicles coming onto this road at a crawl of 5 mph.There is no other entry option as the only other ingress/egress point is off the bottom of Lot 1505 at Teater and that is EFU land and not included or allowed. Another correction for the record and file:the adjoining subdivision,Eagle Rock Estates,is NOT similar in density or size as the proposed,it is an EFU 20 and my Lot is 27 acres.With one Home on it vs.16 homes proposed on the same land mass across the River. Respectfully, Diane Lozito,Homeowner Eagle Rock Estates,EFU Zoned subdivision P.O.Box 85,Terrebonne,OR 97760 a i v pi__.__„t,0_.__ This_goall r quires the county to thoughtfully consider development locations to minimize urban sprawl and to ensure thatilities and infrastructure are adequate to accommodate anticipated-dev merit. This includes consideration of service availability and capacity. Low density residential development allowed in the RR-10 zone does not require urban services such- as sewer and water, as those needs can be served by on-site systems. Service boundaries will not be expanded. Public services, such as police and fire, already serve the area. With respect to these facilities and services, the proposed redesignation will have little to no effect. , - C 261 „......_ 5�vr The site borders on Lower Bridge Way, a publicly maintained county road. The applicant's traffic___. study concludes the intersection of Lower Bridge Way/U.S. 97 will not meet either the X --'-' pertoTtriarards of Deschutes County or°DOT with or without this development_ re is an is Spring to reconfigure the Lower Eindge way g way 97 intersections. This improvement will increase safety but not necessarily capacity at this intersection. Based on the evidence submitted by the applicant, including the traffic studies and the evidence of historical use as discussed further herein and incorporated by references, the Board finds that the traffic likely to be generated by development uses allowed under the current zoning is equal to or greater than the traffic likely to be generated under the proposed residential zoning. Therefore, the proposal should have no significant impact on the transportation facilities. See the discussion below for DCC 23.60.610. The Board further finds that Code criteria in the subdivision and conditional use chapters will allow the imposition of conditions requiring transportation facility improvements prior to or contemporaneous with subdivision or duster development approval. Both the subdivision and conditional use processes require notice and an opportunity for full public participation. X "To Preserve and Enhance the Safety and Viability of Rural Land Uses"' i,! /\ As noted above, opponents argue that before this site is rezoned for rural residential uses, the applicant must demonstrate that it is safe for those resida trial uses and that the safety of other_ local uses, rid i i g residential cultural uses are preserved and/or enhanced. The neighbors expressed concerns that hazardous wastes ram mining activities since 1985 have not been adequately addressed, and•that the 1984-85 remediation and removal of hazardous and radioactive wastes were inadequate. Further, the neighbors argue that the applicant has not yet demonstrated that there is sufficient water to accommodate the proposed site reclamation and provide domestic water for the number of dwelling units that could be developed on the property. In addition, the neighbors argue that there is no evidence that the applicant will take steps to address water contamination from the remaining mining materials. Finally, the neighbors insist that this site will not be safe for residential use or preserve the viability of existing rural residential uses in the area until the diatomite is fully contained. Given the environmental history of the site the Board finds that the rezoning the property for residential use, prior to establishing that the-site is . _ . -...• +se,wi no preserve and 't n wi-ce the sa ea wa i ity o rura Tand-uses. owever, in previous County decisions, it Tias been held [fiat, absit a comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan goals and policies do not constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial zone changes, but rather are implemented through the zoning ordinance, and therefore if the proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, it also will be consistent with . the plan. While not required under this Comprehensive Plan Goal, findings and relevant conditions of approval intended to establish that the site is safe for residential use prior to development are set forth under DCC 18.136.020, as discussed below. ZC-08-1/PA-08-1 -BOCC Decision Page 11 of 38 Document No.2009-168 it ...................................... • C(;) I • resources to the County while considering the public need for the proposed development. FINDINGS: This plan policy Is not applicable to the proposed plan amendment because the applicant is not seeking subdivision approval or development review. if the plan amendment and zone change are approved,then future development will need to satisfy this standard. • 6. Chapter 23.108. Historic And Cultural a. 23.108.020,Goals. 1. To preserve and protect historic and cultural resources of Deschutes County. a 23.108 040,Goal is l -Historic R . ;n 21. Lynch and Roberts Store Advertisement: Ad advertising sign painted on a soft volcanic ash surface. Only.area example of , early advertising on natural material: Lynch and Roberts established mercantile in Redmond in 1911 Roberts Field near Redmond was named for J. R.. Roberts. Site includes the bluff. 1412-00 TL 1501. FINDINGS: The Lynch and Roberts Store Advertisement sign is painted on a large boulder located on the subject property. As this zone change, in itself, does not authorize any development of the property, no adverse impacts to historical resources on the subject property are anticipated. The applicant has proposed several measures to protect this historic resource. The scant has to not deveio .an ( a trespass, prior to development of the site The applicant has also proposed that any Covensn Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs crew n of the subject property will contain •.• .1: r. .►.�►.=Ct the area within a 100 =rd ra.i_ of th i torte si.n .•u • =ve ►:_i, i IT' trespass and to man in = = one markers. The Board • Inds that the proposed measures will be sufficient to meet the goal of protecting this historic resource- These measures to protect the Lynch and Roberts Store Advertisement sign have been included as conditions of approval. B. Oregon Administrative Rules 1. OAR 680, Division 12,Transportation Planning Rule (1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an !,; existing or planned transportation facility,the local government shall put In 11` place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards(e.g. level of service,volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: 2G-08-1/PA-0 1 BOCC Decision Page 19 of 38 , "Docum"e iNo.2009-168 Bridge Way,together with approximately 30 acres along the river west of Lower Bridge Way(approximately 160 acres)°subject to the following conditions of approval: • 1. Prior to final plat approval for any residential subdivision,the applicant shall obtain from the Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)a No Further Action-(NFA) determination or the equivalent for a residential use designation for the 160 acres. 2. Prior to final plat approval for any residential subdivision,the applicant shall obtain from the Department of Human Services(DHS)a determination of no apparent public health hazard`for a residential use designation for the 16d acres. 3. Prior to or contemporaneously with final plat approval for any residential subdivision, the applicant shall record a conservation easement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit G and covenant(by deed or per)to restrict in perpetuity the use of the at,• • +mate 30-acre a c• ••en • uses and • preventing the co ctlon of any == le a structure. 4. I The applicant • • • .�► area within a 100- 1.rd rad- ,.,.: •+, N T : s, development o. he sf . .1. .F. _ •■ ■ere ii.TIT•/►r•1" l"' �i"". 7.,r'►. 11• 11 11eii*1. '� ;•" 1 = , - - c• a. Any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(CC&Rs)created u a part of a residential development of the subject property will contain obligations to protect the area within a 100-yard radius rifle historic sign from development end trespass and to maintain the posted markers. 5. As part of any residential development approval for the si the a••licant a include an informational section in its CC&-=•iinr•x'71 re h = •ry of the s =, • "Wdititirgifie remedliiaireforts taken by the applicant a • '. • i ecessors in interest. 6. If fill is brought onto the site,the applicant shall identify the general location of the fill, and if the site is used for development,the applicant shall either certify that the fill is suitable for development,or specifically declaim any knowledge of its suitability. 7. Prior to final plat approval for an r-■=I•en al su•.• •- •,• a conservation easemen as d: mod in ' T' •n =.��.' 0,"Conservation Easemen• an• specified in -on 18.116.220,shall be required. 9 As more particularly described in the legal description,attached to this decision 85 Exhibit A. ZC-08-1/PA-08-1 —BC1GC Decision ` Page 38 of 38 Document No.2009-168 ,.:,::, ?sc.....,..4,,,,,... il,,.,..,.,,'.,,,....,r,.,wt..,,,,.,.1.41",..,,..:,..‘.,,,.‘..,i,...4: ..1,,044::4,.,,v:t.,.,1,,,,,11.::::........1 zl,„t),,,.,' , , __ 0 •"•'''' ' '''''''.i'''..,.. , ', „,,,:',',',‘,,..;r',',,',ji'''„:',°,,idl,,,,p,,„,,,,:',;:,,.01,*,,, . _. . . - , ' .' 1'•0-4, ) - - _ - _. __ _ _ - --„., ,11to. „';.,:.4,4 • . ••.,.!:'•.:•!1,.:,..4f•.44', :' • -1.:;,,...-mturessimEmordommeogiono,ter-,...„,,,,,,r :' ' ' ' ' ' . ..: ..'4..4-40,:,,,0‘.0,04.1,;■,1 .,i, ., ..._,., .tt»..0,,,,',”;,,;.; • "J"..;1•.••r• , ". W.:. ' ' '''' 404100 .."...•11'' ' ''S •::*.11"; ''!••y .. ."l' : :•, • --• - ;q• I "•••••••-' '. ,... ;;..:1;.•••,y,,t;■,4; ., I ,.. ' ,;.,. ., ._ , • . ! : !', '''' ' —,i,..:., I■ LOCAL PRAIA TE ROA7S ,...-i, , '' :.''''•. ';''‘I.,r, 1.. 11INCAL SECTION i'r'''''..°, ' .,',.., '''::, •,N.••■■.„, ',", 4.'4. ,,„,,, . ,s,, ,': , a.,..iiea.',.'''., 4,:.::''''' . , .,,i■ '''' ' TAN sat 29.0 ACRES. .r - A,,.,‘„P-,,,,.,.:,.4.,,,,,,4,,e..14,,.,10..:',,,,,...'.i,',',.• ,.., .: CONSERVIkTION' EASEMENT :. „ : ... ArrAsa. ilk :,,...,„„tt3 4,4. '10::201VP'.1',:i',” ' ..- ._ . . - • . Cliiit''i:1'kli:':,i''..''.,;•,''. :,. . . ., 'i*', .... . i',. ..,:,',,::,1F,{tit.T.Or"i•1 ,:. l',..': I' - ., - BLUE = 13.84 ACRES FP ... , .r'''','''.14./,'.'i....fkt■ ;•:;',,',;‘,.';.'4J;, gi§teRig LYNCH AND ROBERTS S‘,...;1::, ,:441, ...'''..,■,..".s"ki,, •N!.,,,, ,2""'.':':: ':., .„ ' ' :''..., . , 1 lj'L'Atri,7,'''''',' .". ■q6''''' ', ..' !,..,.' ,.,, „ ,,,, ■'. •• 100 YARD RADIUS .i.. ,-, ii,,,-......4.''.,-•''-,.',.•:r.'''.40`rf. I ... 4;,i;,d.It.:;,,,,.c,',..';',!1'',..,•',.;;,i',;„th,,':','li, "ku' .. ;"••:' : Frt,-,''?.:: .. ',..,;1:,..rt;;;;4, ,‘ ''•• '" .; '•'' .; .1, :V,"fii,-;*.„..,,,ii.'•',"AI,*4 :..; .. ' l''.,,,,..,■ V 44°1'46• ''• :' ''', li. .4., . ........,-, , .., ...,,,ii,,,,!!1-,•,,I,.',',',4,-1131r r- 7°1717'211'111' .L.4111:411,?11" :r0''':!, '''''''''■:'.7144'''fr 11: GREEN = 3.33 ACRE ....„ , •,,,,,,,, . ,,,! , ,40,,,,, wir he, tft 111111014/6111t ;':..;'.■:‘r.:1":"-.1...i'f, ,A; „,„,,,,,„.„,‘ ir ,,,,, . .r,..,,;*,,., ,.. ,,,,,,,,, . .., . . . , ,, .. .. .... . . _, ...... ... „kir, . ., ,_..t._,,.... _..., ... ...,,. ..,,,,,,,,,._, ,,.,. . .. . ..„,., ,,,,,,,,... .„,.„.,,,,, ,,,,,...„..„ -.1.7,00-,....,4r,.,,p;,,,,,,,,,...,, ,N, ,A.,,,Y,',..1.%.: . .. - 1,,,,,,, ',, - ,,r4r , --''' '„iv „tie—,op.' l',7,„,..1,7.,,, 11; ' 4'''','1,30,2'' ' ?'•4,09pe.4/0" , #4,yerge: .,..0;IP ,,,,...4.,i, '''' t°419!"DELES6PritRig • .• . . , .411"i0' i'',‘ . ''''...r‘007,,,(!.!.,,p.tf..,, , '''::i''''... , • ....., '''' ti, ?..,...1 .. : ,.„,,.,, .c,,tt, i,, ,t 4 410:'4,1.4,,','..,,,,,ji,'A'„1,y41:;". Joe.,0, A ,,.7A 1, .•'“, i' :,...,.:•., 7.4..i. : 'I .'g,,..'..,1':i.' ;i',.lii(i:it,ri't.:°:,',1:11,,.:,.•1,9:r'At.'.:1' ' . ' 4:.:411:(,j111:L:,,,,,:',.',.40:#!.:dr.11:111"...a/".:111;40eit'.4.41:1:1;1200:411iri:.°7r.01.....„T'.,:....,:dilir,:',.f',,,d'r7.:140,•Fer,441:7..i.:.."..,iir-l'._,..:10.::::".....4'.10.,,•:6:440..,."...4,,,,s,,,,fir...4irr,...0:40r.,,.,,A,.,...,,,440,....',,,$,'',00:,:....,,.001:,'.';1;1:..0,...,,,,,o'dorr',AoH,:.,0,'1:.'.4,,,'.;0000,47,. ,',',11i'ft...,,,1 j';',,,4%,,,,:..,„,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,1 ,,.....i.....i.,ii''',..11:ii,'''.. 1... ....I.■'. 1'4111 l'' .. ,,,,",,, 400 ?:ipp./ww. 11" '' , , .,,. lI...• •'",•'',..1!1,''''g• : .1••'..40.Z leitele4701, Ir 49 fo 0,4; * 1. . r?" ' ' it • '1".:11°"'',10116441'';::/;:,..■-:0• •i'''''''''''j',,,.%).V•;:','„'• jr : ,',lifFit' .1.:,..4.", mor..-ai :1;.4,-,i,"..,:',. ...',:• ..:,:'.4d 9'!;II; ,01,4,.. s.0,— /Pr '$"Iir Arliraill' ,•,, , ..• , ,.. , aitANNEA '''''' OA ■11' '. '4' 1. 0 . a . . ' A,,r4".ii.4:•:'' ,::"j .." . ',Ow i'":4‘!41FlOr r '' '‘'',."--7‘. r 4 AftiOutrtNetat LitetlyettItgl War..t.'C tto ttitt•I Nit&Art MS ,.. iNtlagt.0 4101116T 41,1; . ,,• le •_,, , ,7 ,47,.. • , ir .:.,. ,.. INLIMIlit04. 11170 SIMMIN PrtliVON itowelttto Stott 011110.st,t, „ ''' ' t. •' —, .00tu100.1.5 I tiltelltr.7,ratoras Amply amoitmattot....,Ittwa 4tt.,t Attitt)tt,4110tCt4 . ‘ aetleiew mow 0:11 rr... ,•■ nt1ILINGt.r.i.art •multAtIt Met"WC, zo.i.nwarc...t-r. ''.■141. :, . \ '',',.., , :0,, 4„''' VI-,*.■'''.: Ar'40,, iP,020, , "4 ., i ank*pm/•+.4-s i0A040.• ,F.: , , . Airoki,:, :. : :• 4 i . a. V te ■I.41. t , ' T **KV, • •,,w LAP,MICIPfrit,07 s Aanc.oz: nolo hogo ro mnit nt owctwaiv.ommov Y..- .i. , . ..tar/P4OK.44..' ....V • , /it 44, 140.M171011,..".Lc,IF.‘rcoArg*v At■ttulli WON. 43 OM.LOWN,t cntettidt.5.1.71%. ., / • , 0411 Aloft,tvtt1S4 '", .(i,'4t-it '''',., •, t•t ' 1,..alia,aa, go ; 4thal4 •'' „ 4 ,i NI VIE POrZirtlIOV '°i'1 (44% ,°..0-1 - --4 PROJECT AR,EA SaLMARY :•4 "k .: ••7 4 ,. , LEGLND . 0 WTI 1•07 41 z%e'er, V1'I° 0)` ; 4' raiLtatiort ra t tntioM ratterLiellr;autz NS 4,Vint „', ''' 't ----' Ineft.etttlies ,. AIL&MOW Ahrig247141Wat .41 AMU #1.01.11WCZY•1 , 81,ACI Ler OUP=ittX41610 9.,q kr413 0.,„ •.; i ,:•18.'4 • - , •N.WWI'/*OPIUM 7/tak1,7001 4134, • Lk.t•d-WI*QUO APAZIla A ... rlitttri&A.N7PC,PROTIMI IttnIACISkr mom'nage PLUK WIC IttrIPAIII „won=3,4,4,,t. :, ut.4cturnt rairrsapt ct,Ill4rrii tt,,t AIWA iTerAi.*au mirror ,,,,.;...011,2 i ' i` •: DA..isf" 1;.A1 BIT C -----..' 'fl,talat''hat•T‘Or•Ar"' ,:'''',... Wan=Mt IMO _ P.001__. IIUoMft„IL.mlOugaNc,ttr_l T o—SZiAirC—tIIpS t-II—iW..V0.1e0._tA t__,__,....„ ,4;°';•'1;'1:.11ti4, 43-'0 : 3 " = ,.5.„-0-0 ' ttataTIC W=,61141:0 IIA WM AD . t ''V anont4=e3t0fa.ta4m..•14r0 t, ,.,,,.,.* u■..„L.E.:M'ftlelle..r..Ld..=.....7.40....•.,.. ..A.,,.,',„,,;..,,„ Odlegtel,•04ACO ',19, leaf 1011111 411$4 grer0 alMit OP 4 MKT a 11.3,aa.z tze« , : .: •t*i 14'' / _,,,...,,, ..- omit ntat'ot .— - .41, Iglu.woman um.. tr.Ara% OREGON FERRIES Canyon. Robert Smith, an Indian, operated the ferry at this site from 1905 to about 1909 (author's estimate). (197:199) Dizney Ferry 1910-1913: John T. Dizney and his sons operated a ferry with the Campbell's (see Campbell Ferry) before acquiring one of their own. Gillis O. Dizney, son of John T. Dizney, established a ferry at a site directly opposite the town of Vanora about 1910 (author's estimate). The bridge built at Mecca in 1913 put the ferry out of business. (196:76) Lower Bridge Ferry c.1860-1876: There was a ferry downstream of the Tetherow Ferry at a site later known as the "Lower Bridge". Early settlers traveling the Willamette Valley and Cascades Mountains Wagon Road had to ford the Deschutes at this spot. A ferry was built in 1860 and used until the bridge was built in 1876. The ferry site was at, or near, where the current Lower Bridge Road crosses the Deschutes near Redmond. (223:5) Tetherow Ferry ry 1879-1885: The Tetherow Ferry was located at what is now Tetherow Crossing, a historical site a few miles north of Redmond off Coyner road. Andrew Jackson w Tetherow operated a cable ferry at Tetherow Crossing". A. J. Tetherow was the 1� y g son of Solomon B. Tetherow, leader of the ill-fated Tetherow wagon train of 1845 guided by Stephen Meek. The wagon train is associated with the "Blue Bucket" mine legend in which a bucket of gold nuggets was collect somewhere along the trail, but its actual site has never been found. The Tetherow Crossing was . significant to the east bound traffic over the Santiam Wagon Road seeking access to the Central Oregon gold fields and grazing for cattle, as well as those headed west with produce and wool for the people in the Willamette Valley. A bridge was built at this site in 1885 (148) '. Peters Ferry c1900: A ferry belonging to John Peters washed down the Deschutes River during the winter of 1909 and lodged against the Homestead Bridge. The ferry site was located seventeen miles up-stream from Bend near the Peters Bridge at Sun River. (194:12/22/1909), (225) John Day River Spray Ferry 1896-c.1920: The ferry at the town of Spray was started in 1896 and lasted into the 1920's.The ferry was located near where the current bridge and Riverfront Park are now (118) 11 :I... •,,,,,.! ■ '',.■ A.... ;:■•:•.:,:...• .,,.. '....,.,.,....4.,..... . . .'4.'• ' '''•••••• •#' .1,. '••,ii. ..,...•• ., .... • ■.. y. )4•‘:'1!,:‘,10:•.•...•■:.%•:,•...‘7,‘••.•;•.,••• ... • • ."•*'••• •:1;.*:'.,.•..f*.„M*",.I.:1,,,'''''''.''''''''''.7.*'4iik'''.• • .441•114 "••!13,!•• nV ,...,•■ —. ,,,,, •'•••''''''•'•t•'''',•;:.••:•.••••i..•%'''',,,•,..."..,,, ....,, •••• ...f••,. .. ..,'...•• . ,..„,,,,•:. -:•.. e... ' •- .,••••• .,•••"-Irl'•''••••••'" .''''..„.•°.:4,, ••" ' •" ‘,„*.;: .'••':,',;',',,,S.,1::',::..,.„1....,.,'...‘,..i6, ,AOF,..'... • ,•?.‘.!:,w",,A•lt....,,•4:c. " . ...1.... .tit,..i,,:::]. ::•••••,„:1:2,....,40.,,••• ,•,... • to 1.,00: -.••:: . .:4,.....„...,•:•„.. • /0 , ..... ... •,, ..0",:.:::::',"'"::::•!,",,•''',,•••,:••":•,•:•,"".'.•„:„.„•:!•,•.,,,,•,..'„•,...,!:;‘,$04/:or••• .• ,, ••''''''' •••,••-•.,•, ''''' ''''•••''.......:.::. 0 . -. ‘,m •:.:::,..,.::;•:::::„:„ . .. .'; • :„,•!•••••••:..,4,",.4",•„,:•:•,,,••••;•••••,..,.......• ••••..,,,.•••••....„•• ....:„..„..:-.— . ,••,‘ •••'•• 0 - ,,, -• •• : •• „. ,,,,,,,1 ■•,•,•:0*::••••0:-,,',:••\ •,•"'.'!:""•:•"::,•'„•,:"...,-,,....:.•,„„:, •••i••••••••••., -'",:.4.:.•''....' ....04'........1•Z'.•.• :'."!.:',.':'.'..:::::."':::;'.,;:ik....‘.:"!,...."...•1..'••••••••!'.:..!;"••,...:'••••••..;.: ,..;••••:•“'"•• •••‘'.'„- ....):',....4.. • . II • .• ..,....,...^'"r.A. .....•0•:!•••„,,,•7•.:..::- .'''''‘'''''•••••;,',',•Pa'...,,:7.'"•`•4.:1,,•••••••1.1•V:".•:•,:•;•••0,•.:••t,;"...• )•':":"0•:"",•:•Jet01,0 ••••••:• 'A:, •• ..r.,,,. ,...... „...„,. 11$"."":'."■':::\1.:.•!,,."'•''""A.,.;:'•.:,;"'''',..`,4"..!..":"•i!'".'•:i.‘4 • • ' "• • '•• -• ,,• , "OH""4:;,•,:„‘ ',"•;!;:'.I.:••:.4•1",`\`i.::0‘.''''.:,:Si"•, •••••;H•'''' .•••:—''' -'••••?''" "•.• \'''' -'-•••••• -• — • • •.A,..0.••A'',.,,.„0, .."-.'",' ,,,i',.•'.'. ,.0;•••,•:‘,‘-,•:•••••'.'AV..$•••!...•,••,''''";•••0•0•• '..."'''';",ak,••••,•,••.••••"•.1."••••••0;,,-,AA,,.........• ..., ....... • 0...,,A",.... ,, ....,„.„,„,•-•,• '''‘'`V4'' '''' ^\ 0'' •'•• 0•••••••••••00 A.•:'''•• •••••••A••• •'••••-••"---'••••••••''. •••'•'•••,0.000-••••:•••''',••••,,'••••,•■•',N\',Ai• '.••••::a•••„••'""'00.•1A.0.0,,,H.:A":.'„:::•••,.....0••••••••A. ••°'‘A,,,A,...' .. UU••I;P,,V•;;AA,A.,•;',.;;•„' ..,:.,,,,,,,.•.......„,„„,,,...„, .N , , ...„,....,...... fi,,...,,,4••••4" ••. •• , • ,,,,,,,014,,,,,,t,,, ,,,,•••••,..„.,,„.A.,,,,,•••,... .,•••:• ,-." . UUUV '••ok•••••••'•••••••-••:."•••-• '. • .:-.• . ::••••' " • '\.‘ „' ... • •••4,„;:„,..,,,.,........ ,,,:.,••.:•.:.....-,.-... • •,..:: .... ..... :•"•::, .". •';',:!•;,"" •••'• ., •••• ..,ht••••••••?\"`''''‘ARA.,:•,•"*„.•••:!•,,,',";„•;',•A •••••"•••• •t•• •'41'... ••'• .., 1 ''''''' . ., . ,A..,•,$,,,A,.. "- • ,...... .,. „AA • A .,• . ' 111 , •• " !II';•••,,•:•:•."•••• '''.....i '. ''',..1 i'A! ,,•0 '461 ,:.:•;•i•;;. ,. :••A'''''" •••••••0....A.:00...,•••• •• :";;° .',•,•"0..'•,..":. „,,a0••••,...!°•••:••.,•••.:•`",;:.,,••)::`,k,:.,:',..•!,:0..,...,••, .‘.‘,..'0.,.:•••••:".0. ., ,a .. . 1*.k.;■:!;0,4,4‘,...i.;,',',4..;.:::','•• N,4‘, ••• 4. :, - . , , •-•.,A• .„,.. ..„. 4•1.',.,:,t,•";‘,4.,::4''',':1. 4;114.',': ■• ;' ;"••••:::', ;•,,,.• • • . ... „ , N •• ••• ?. . •„:„.• .0.;:•„:„.„.:„.„,,,,,...1.1,,, ,..... ,„.. ., •••" - 1 , '' ...,:,''''''''''',..,.. •,..1,.''.,o,• ":,,,,,T,...44.0 , ik0., it`:.'',.",..".;..:..•...,.,,';!,:(......:::....::.:::',., ..:: '.,.::••,::i .• :,,,,, •04 040.", I. • .:4 4.0A .a ., ,.0.•• VI Ii .4.•°•'• •-'• , , ,.........,„....... . .,. ,,,.. , " -• ••''""' •• •• •••••• . .,*•0‘• ,::•,...;•••••••':`,::•,,,,.... .,A 0... ..,..A.00, , 1 '4"......:.• "'")..,1 .,0,' ''A,, "" .,,..A.,",••;•,•a.„,•...• . ,'•••"'"'"••••••••••••• ••••• ,• , . -" ...' A..::••••;••'•,..4,•••-••"•••••• ":":•,..•••:".A.*:A4,:•••••,..:1•04.•'.46.•••tAHVO•A`T''''.".--••••• " '''"•N'i• •••••'•:•"•":":•••••:••"•:" ‘.."••••:".• .'•''' ''••••"" .."0,'''',4•:•• 'P' .,' 0""""•11."•:•••• ••••0."'•,.:•••••••••"A''.'"•••'',",....,°",.."•1•••',..'"•••••••'••4ti.").".•',\,";:tili;0;•0''''•4-,•••••••„... '" ,0.:••:::•""••••••••:•'.."".:••••".:•'"•••'. ,•.•.• .';,:".'","" ..,, • •"'"A•••••"4.-•"'t. 0""'"••••'•••••••••A•A:."•"':'••"a•'•0",'I4'.••••••"•••'.."."'";:';Ir'••••0'"!•••'••'•"30,.,;••:•''''."•••••: ',.."'.,,,,"••••••A.'''a"'"'"":"0"••;•;•!;:•t0::•,',;....,11,),.,•,.. ....*"'•••••••••••'••••••••''4.• . ,;:••• •••:•! •• •A i•-• (I '''''''•••••'• er. •- ,:•0...:,0: ' • A'.,',.N.'",,..',',"•,:,`.,•?••••••,••••••••••,••,•,`,."3:••,•;,„••,., t„.......,,,A.,'',.,,•;',••••;",\,;•;,!•".",..';';••:, :t•ia.:,..!'•!•..:1••,..,,'.."••,•,'•:'',1,,;',••,'Y.'••.0.0.0.•A.....,' .,.•••••°„:',.,'," ..';'•;::. .:•:••••• :"'"': „:.!•;•$ ,,,,...-....3•-'„ ••,.....0..00.0: . . I °,,, 6... • ., ••;:.•,,..,...;•„..,..„,•. •„."....,?•:.,;!„.i.......:\....•,.,..z ,:...,.....:..••••:.:•.,....."..•,,••••...,„.••:.,••:,,,,:„•,... .„\i„... • .•:.• ... „.,• •,,,:,.• ,•,••,....„:.„. .....:,,..............,....„,........,..,...„.•:,..,:......„4.:„......7),..,...,:: , . • ....• .,.,,..,,.:..... . ... • ..:,.•....4.,:,....,.......".:„............„,..,„:..;4::,..,\A,',,,,,IA•.••■••••,•,,4tOlitip,.,i)fie,•••,g,,„, ....,:, •`• • •••'•• "' , ' ' • •'''''"••It.00•0••••""'•;,••••'" •"'4'\''or'"V. ' ( '', ,':"'''''''.'.•',.:'''',0,'" ' -,..."......." ;,, ,,, " . ••'•'!•••!•,••••li••,••...,',A•:,,:,•,,,•'''.'"••$•••••,,;"•••:•",'••••••••'.•,:•AAt,".•,,;,,,•■•••• ••:•i••;,;,,,;60,7)•;7•■•••:•::i•:,`,•••:•,,,,,,,,„ •,',.",,.... ''',1•40i',f... ••••,•1,i;,,,•• ...:,. ,;;;'•••••!:::" 11,11.1:!•:‘,•'::ii...k.i.:,..i•l,''''e.'.:......,'.,.......':•.....".;•'•.'••,:•i',;:i..:"••••.:.‘"‘"'.'''''.%•::."•..".••". . ..i• •••, ''..:' . •10011'.i:'•'!• '•\1:•:'•'•:,:•••,':4*.:•,:••;.‘";••,."A..'‘f:•...'‘:•,,A,..•.'''', .•" ••••••••'• • .'"""..i.,,•••,•,•".'". • ';147- ,......., ,,,..•,,, ,..o,,• Q • , - ....„... ••'" •.. ‘: •'•••'••.•,•,•,•••,;",'''''''''''.••••,:'"•:.,,•„:•••••!•••••‘"C,A',A,, ;••:,)•••,!';,,•„,:::*•;'•i7":44:"."H•:••••:••••••••••••:!•••,:•:1•••-••,"'.'"••,..."'"440.41°"•••••:::' '''''••'• • . 1•\•••••• • i•,•••,,,•,..„,!"'"•••,..,?4'•":•:,,I,.......„.."'•••••":"••"",,,.:•,A•A'At:.\‘'',•;•,;•4......,,•:•.••••"••••:•••;:`":"...4.:•,•:',,••••,1•••;••••••:•:•••,"•,:••'"•••••••:"::':•:•••"•;:•••' :' •••,.• '•••••••&••‘•••• ..:::::::'••:•••... "1,:;,•,,*•f•i;',".\‘."',.:•*,:".‘:•••••,,I•rt".:•,••••;•■•••:::::•,.:•••,....,..;'''' „•',1,,•• • .. '''•••'".A••",••o••'."0.A: ,• •''' ''''•'''•.•'.'.,,,,,. . • • ps , --,• . • ,•" ..,:•,••••••,••,,,,•,',•,••••••••,,,,• •••••••,••••••‘•••AtA‘"•••, ---•••••••••,A•••••••••••:••••,•••:-•,••••••,k,•••• ••••••••••,•••••• • :1,',....•'. ''.•••• ,ki','',‘,..,;41„..4r:;•::,,, ,,,••••,::•,:,• ;.'•:••••'.,'••••'••••••••• •••%,•••• . .. - , .' "404.,•••,:,4,::•,:,.$:•••••,,:k...,.:;..,:•..,,i,:,••,,......,,...4.?.. .......:,, . .,.; - ,„•• .. ,,,,,,•••• •,•••„:„, ,••04;:',..,,::::•,;,,,:•••:,,,h.:;.4:•,,,•:'„•,•;•••:,i,:•;•,ht••:••,••••,,,„,,.,•„.••„,,•,•........ %"%•i,,,•. • ••' • „ • •• • •••••-•••:. - ....., ..-,.,..• , .. ,.. . . • .. , UV . ., • •..„ ............ '....... .. . .•:„..,;.1..• „......- •,•:,••••• .:.. • •,„:.: ,...„,•: ,.•. •••••••.t.;.'‘'‘• • .,01 ,••‘•,...",...,:•••,,.,,,••:,••,•h.:.....,,•,..,..!••••.•,. ••••',,;.;:::, ....,.., ,••,,,•!:t.,„,,,,,,.,,,....) .„‘„,..11;('',..,.-, : • . -...?...•••,, ••• ••1'.... . A ..4".: t0;,'' ''''.- 00.• • ....,... A - ,,A,F0,•,..1:0•!..,A...., 4 ,AAA ....0...„... . - ..''''• ., . ,.,.•,,, ., '• 0•••,..'' • •„..... .A.,.....,....: „....... • . '.'",;•"0.:'.••: • • -A 0 ••,••0:. "...AW,....:;•!0§.:••••• m.•••••••••• ••••••• 0:."..t!''•••,•••,•:••••,•AA\A• 0,\••;.0.'. .., •At.'• - . , ..,. ....,,,R,••••-••..4.5....„,!:. '••••'•A'.,'„,•0"'.... '40.•,••••,i''••••'.j:•40. .,,,,,•::,, • :::•••,:::•',,,,, ,:;••••••••‘•• ,..„•••• ••• ••••:. " 0:„••••:",,,,•‘V;,,/,0!•:•• • •••• . ';:•'.'.'.,'„‘••:::::..,...„A„,•,,,:,••::0.4:0,•,41(01::” :'••'•".:;•:..:::::'',:•::•,••••••••••:•:.„•••••••••:rt::•.;":, • .:••::;:'',.!... ,..:.....,••••••••:•• - : -•••":--•••"•:---K „„,...... . . ••••••• •., .... , , ..„,.......... .t : .„....,......... . ..„ „••,...„,..„:„.„ '"•::!:"•" ••••„„,••••••44*Koolud::•••"•,''''"•" ''.' • • -• 0 ••• :•• :•• ' • ,......... , , ,•..ip•-•„,,,••,,,,. .. ...... •••••:: , ••• •o•.:.:0 0: "•:•:••: .,...,••••••;;;',!:,S• „:„. .„.,... .„........ :., ••• ::"•-••:" ' ' „i17'0-1•:-l•flutot: • • ' • • .,„...,„..,„,•.,. . „.„„:„..„. ..., _.„..„...„.....!.....,....„..,....„...,.. ,„:::••••• - - ...•„„„,....,..,. .. .. ••• ••.. .„,...•,,.......„„„,,. • .„.. „ ....... ... . „... ... . • • .. . .,. , .„...... .... . ....,„,„,.. .. , ............ .. „.,...• .,•••• .,..„. ..... . .... .. ..., .,. ,•.. ..„„•••• :•,'''''''''':',.•:.''''''''':,:!''''.:'.....:.'"..........:.:::::.'....:',...................... "i''",.:,„ .2.04.• . ' •:„ :.! ••• ,•00:"0.•'..„, :• - • .„.0,0 it,• .. ,..........,....•, .... ...., ......_„.., . ._ „ ',.. „ 111.114.- • „ ,,• k ........ •" •. ......., '..„;--''• . — '- ....„, •••'..%,.:• ..1:•„:: . ,.,..., . „, .... . ... t'' ...., ,.....,•:.: . \'''.:::‘"'•:': ' ' ‘•004 ..,.;:.:•, ,,.., .. . ........,......,..!...... ,,,.......... ".' ••••'. . . ,. . ,•:‘,•;••e••,:.. '.',,•,::•::,•••••• .4. ••'.• ' - 4:.:::::•:•.:. :; ';'••' - .•-"7"..."..:;•:''"•"'""'''''"Ale'l.'4 ".." -,,,,•''-"'• '..-:•::,:,.:;' •. • •'::•.......1',::'":•.•''''.',''';',.ii";•••••••:::,:!!:,,,,,;.;•:.'•"'''';'•!•,•:::::'',•,;:'•:...;,:::'•;,■!.,••:,!:•:•.:.:.!!,t.'..:':':•;::'..;',!■:''.•.:,....,;:•;';':,•:`.'.;',:.;'''::K.,•'''''.g'!!.';'.,!!,■!::;,!,!!:.:1'.::!,:::':::!:;.''':!:':::14:14Witt* .•.;ii!,:;:;:.'•':'‘.•••°.,•••,:.,•••,.,•:'.'•:.!,V,••,••••..•••• •••••;!••:,.:•',.•,••,...,,•,;:4.':,•:.'•.H••••,-:' „‘„:„..,:,. ,•••.,. '''''.".'''''''''" '' ••••':' •,',''''•"P„4,'q!•!•;;::i';'•''::,:;:,::'••:•'''''':':•:•••••i.:..••••;•••••:.::,"::;:•;;;::.•••::,•••:::,.......:::.:•:•:::!;:1:'`..,•:::';::•:::.;,•,'...".';:.'112..::•'''...:',5:::''',"':‘',.-1,'":"."I'ri....:',,,,,•..,..;'•'••'',..'.;...`:,!:!'.•`''::••,'.'••••::.:!:!!';:;!::::';'•'..:',':':'''`..:!...#;■■!`•.ti*It'Itli;:4:;i::.,:•\';''''.!,';i:'.?:.!':!;:',,i::•: •'‘..::'.'4:!''':21%:$.3',;*..,,,',..:4'.',•;.,...i..::•:::`.i.''....:-',.,;•:..,.,....:„,.....,...::••:••:,.,.‘,'•::::•:•:':;;',..::',,'....... ••:•••••••••: :•::•!:•.' •••• "•.',:'. :''''.••:••:':':::.:.:•"•;::::'"..",,",:',•••••:•:••:',:•.:...!.,',..,:•,,,,;;;;;;•,:„.!:,'•;:'::ir;:;:i;.;•ii•‘:•:.::•!'"•';,'•'!:i...',:,.•:;;;;...,•,....,;:.„..,„.,•:••••,:,.,•,i•:;:'''''''•••••••:',,•:::;;•i;:!!;•4;i::,''''y::■::',0.:0:•!'::':',;.''',.,•`1:••••::':•:•••••''''''.':•'•!.:••'.••:.•':••:......'.........:.'''•:•:':':::.,‘.,!..:•::.••.:•\0‘1.'„.4::.;`''''':•:•:•4.••4;.:'::•••:::':•:'';':•::.•:•:','•..i:':;!,•.•it)'■'•.....'''''.!t;•'::f::' '''''''::::'''•Y'.''''....'7'''•''..•'....'`.'''',:'''''',''':',''.':••,,',...•;..:,•••••''''.'.''',..t..::;,•:;•,,'•'''.•;::..:■'....!::•'.:::••t.C..45V.it.■'‘Z!V•'••.:::••■••1',..;':.'v..‘....:`''''••••'''::''''.:,..,''.'•'••.',•!';!;','''':•'''''''1..':':':''::'''..''''...::'..•••:.....:V`•:...1...:',.;,: ...;..:,:•••;:::•3•:!•:,..,:::•..:!:••,.::..:ii,",,,••,:,:.•••••;!;'...",.;■t:.,.;;.,,,:■:;c'.,;;:•;.;1:...,-•'•;:';',..',•0:40.4 ..H1:!0,':'.!!..;,:,•,....,!•7•.•,0!•';:.1,',,;j'..!•,0*,,!•!1;11.::•••10,0•*iiii.".!•".7.::',:.....'•'•....',':••••,:.•.'::::4'''7:.•"••'''''...,!••:';':.;',,•••••.'..''..‘•"•••••.‘'.:,'.•;,..'?„,••••••'''.',,',4\l'ii,,':•.1.,:,..0...:.....r....4,...:,:.::,..‘.,.,.,.,,,:.......,.•.:,...4,,!•,.:.'..;,:•'''.....:',•••••..•••••••••:::•,..,........:•....:.••••••••...,..:..:.,::::',..:„.,;,•,,,,,:•••,,•.:,;,..:•,.:..,...,.,,,,:,.:,•0.:.,,,,,•'.',,,.;...,!‘;;p:.,:b:•,:t):;:;•::::„.,„.t.,.;.:...,...,...;,.‘.,....,.4,.....„ • ..„1•••••••••••,„ 3,..,',,t...:•;",:.;!:,•.,:.•'•:''..::',''......:;...:•;!;!:i,•.,...:,•,••::,•••:.,•••••:::'4,..::',',:':',''''....'•',):$.`0,11•V.!','":.'.'00:0100•,.s,'•',„:;:,,;••:01t..k,.:01100,,,k;,.1:,:!!•!:•••v...r.•„„•.:,....;..:.,:.,.H•••••:•.':.•,.....:...••••.• .,.,,,,,• '..:,y0.•'•;•.',...‘. .....•••••••••,.,..,....',.....y....'.‘;.,•„;,.•.,,,:..i,,',;,,,'••:,,,...,::..,,,::•7•,••:•.:•••••••••....:...,,..• .....:„.........•,,...„. .......••••:•••••,.. • .........•••• , ,•:•'•••-•••••••-•'..:, ••1.•,..,,.•:,:•:.,:,,,..,...k,•••,..•••••••••• :.;•••:, .......•••:••• .. ...,.. ....„.. !- ..'w,.;''';\,,'.4....\4e.:'''''''''4?•"::•••' '•••!‘•• •••••••• ' - •• •';••"'"f'•"!!'•• -: •• ":4•"". '''..•••••••••‘4*••••••''''''"'•"" V :'.',0...... • ••••"1"4.'"•."' .."""•:.".".•••:°•:•:•i•t•A,i;;I:::•''v't,:ki•••°!'"".•410..„'04,1‘004ti'•'•••,,,'":""0,'",:A,t.:••,••••:•••Y'''.!..i..,••:..'.,1.•••,',"'..,••••.•:".•:••••,.i.,,"."4:0*0!\‘rtetl.lii•""'H....A'•."A‘-"4.!'•••••,'",..."• .••••-•"."'"„4"'"•••0,••••••• .. ' •- -' "•„•0, • ••I''.:•::. $...:.',,......:••••• •••,g1"::••!•,,•1•0' :liF.„7,01I40,.;'1''....•••••••1.•"W",,ia''''.. 0.`,.'".::•••::•'•••'•••0''"t*,,,•••4••••••.:;::•••••••J.:".•?••••:::*'•'...:."'.$i•.'•"..0'"••••'"":••••,":""I.,:.••'•.'•.,:''.*, ••••••••::•„1",,.:'' '...,..„ y 7:,...'..'.:•••„•,:•••,,,..;,.•‘..••••••••••'.:::...... •••:.,.,.....,.. —•••,- •••;0•••:::.•.,' .. k•:.,:.:‘,..• .•'..!:4•..4:k:.,,,,:i:;,•40.;.,000,00.,..,,o..0sit.,,,.•,;,;•••:•,•,§,0•%,.;,.,..„:,,...,•$•,•i^,4.,,,,,,, ••,...,4i.,.,...,......•••,...,.:,v!.„•.::.„...,....,,,,'...••••••":;••,,....,,:.....,....:.H.,:,.•,..,.,,,,,,,i4.;.,1,;;,,,,„:•.,,,,..,,.:••••:••.;,,,,•,...:,,,,,..•,..„,,414,.,••••••1.,•• ..,.,„•,,,\,..,.:......,•,.... • .,:.:......,.:.....,..: ,i,.. „„,,,...., t....:••,•••••.t...,,,.,••,.....„.,..:...:.• ,., , . .. ..:.••••••„..:...........:. .. .,...,.... .. ... .•'•.'•.................:.......:•••,:.... 1:•..,••'•••• ,••••••••:„,...,...4%0:. ..'"'!:'":'"'r,•'.'•,.......",••:','•;i,;;,i;\,"';•.;.',i.,,,i01g040.....';....'''''1;"•.;•':::::•••••;'.'.11:4•,'.:7•;.'.;''''''..',...,••••••;'.'. ....',•:',i'.:"ii :'::'!''''..'",0,.:••:‘,„„'::.•:';::'•,'. .:it'. :,;•:.'.!`...:,„.‘,,,.,•,,:••••••.,.....':':.'.:';'•••••;:.,,,,A,41P;i4*.,••,•'...\.,‘..:.':.•\:.':'•‘.'..'''...":4,...,-. .:"•-•,.,.:.0, :, , •,:.. ' ...;.,,,,,...:.••,,,...,.:......,:. ..... . . .... •........: ....., ,,,,..,..,::::.:.,:.... ... .............,......„....„..,.„....::„.......... ;•.:::::•,•:::.,, ••:,:„.,•!•••••:,,,,,::•:::::••,:,..:•,.•::;;:•,:i,•;,:::::;::,•0::,,,•:::, •••••‘:.1.,'•••••,"'.„,q..:,...:4,4•;;..„.;...,,•••,.,•'•'.,••:•'.':!,,..,....,...,!''....;•!!•'•-••••''';.,.....--"'•."'".^1,,.:,!,0.•••••••,:.•,..... '..„ •,,,,•:;.',.,. ' ''. :Aki • . i::::,.• :, i •04. ":"::;;:;: •,::::•;::: 40,k.i:'•,:•'''''.:::„•„‘„,,,...,•-•:•"::::••••••:••••••-••:'-• '""'' '"•••";:. •••••••"'"'".. .. •.............„...„ '•!:•:••••••,• ......„••••„....„„.•• .,0„:::::•::::::. :,•:::•,„"5.::1,0,.:•;,;;:::"k.:;::,,,!:,•:,!4:!^••!;6,.."::•10„::••••••• t• ••••,••••„„.•••:. •• •"•••"•k•4'••••-•"•:••••••-• •'1•S•:; "••"'"•• •'"'"' ', .:•• • '''' ..0.0.4:"' ''''','"':•!;:•)VP.11A, ..04I.,, „ys;,;,,......„...........A.„.„A,,,,.....00AA,40•AA4..A"c.:00•::A.0•A•0'•!•"*\*,'!:,••••""*":A.•••'''• ' • • ••'• ••••••• •e•A:::".••• A,.........,.. '••":•:•;°•;!•'''.:•'•'..!..,',;:""'''''::•:':'••:',.:".1::I.•'•••:'•.'!'"••.,0•••:•",,A.,•••••••••••',','••,••"•:••,0•:!•••••;,....;••••,'..:'••••••'''',„•,,A.A.,:.,.-•••,,....,•..\"0!••'••0•0, „,••••".,,,,,,„.„,.,..100.:Ak..:••••0••••••,54!:.'"A•.'".•;',1441."••:!••••••''.;••••:0":"...•'.•.""!•,"•";•,:•'."•••••;„••,,i..,\••''.:,0';•••'i,,•••,"'""..."..'"....i!!•••••":•••••''•••••:•'•,:••\""'".',•:••••'•••••••••''''"''''"""•••'0,••••"'••••••,::A.,"A''••••••"'•••■•'"Wa•,A;:":".•'..,"0:i••,••i•• A.,,.."•:•"0•A:".,'A'••'°":"••••00A`'.0'..'$"i'''''..0.,....0...r'''''••■&,. . . ' •':••••:••••'.•••:•"'; ,.,!•!'::::••:"..,•••':::::;",..!•";:•.:•!.•:•,::5•:•.;•0••"'".'•:4•:,PI',.•,"••'0,:••••••.,0:a•.;.,:,.„'e"';'.'4.•••!•0• •,• ,. . ....",',"••''.. """-••••':••••,:".'.',:••••'•:::.",..'•!•.,"A'.."."'-0".,•••""'''"•:•"••••:.:H•00.;,"`.0.1."0.',,•:.,,ii'i,.."4.:14..0•':!...A,•,::,•',•"•!'•'••••:"••••••••0;:"'''.',:.....'•-• ..;•••A.•••`....:'."-Ait''••"•••••....„:•,,,...,:•••••A,•••• '••••:;•,'.''''';•,•'''..••....,;••• •••. ',"•••••••••'....`.11*1t„.•,..•.„.,,,,,,........,„,. ••:•0,.!'"'1,'0.,•!A,,•,;••••"i'.:2r•••0„..,• •„i„•,,.,°.„:00.,...,,••.!•'•,.,•;',-,;':.:•:;•„,Atai,,,,,,••::0,,I•ii,A,..,,...f,.......•"'"' ••"'•'•• •.0A•••".::. •....::.,'„•,,,••••:•',0..•01.•:,,,,.••••••,,...„•,,'...r....'.:•,•,•,e.......„:.:,.:•..,...' '..,,,,,;.•!.`'.,,,,....‘•....•..• . . .. :‘.:....:" • . . , ..... ,•...,..."•,`;‘,.:;'... ••••• •-,"„,,,," "'''''''" ',..4.:.;,.,,,,,..,.,,.,,,":.,.,:!„..... •,,,,,,e1;,',.„,,k. •,....:.• •.,. ::t:••••,.. ."•:::',,,:,,i ' :...;,,"....":•;:::•;:::.:";;:•.\.:'•,:•••'"'•'":,........,. „, ''' . •:.,•••••,••• •••••••;:::::,• •••":::',....."0 ::••••••••••,• •'• '''•t.:• ' '•••:%::.:, :..,..". .,,.:••.::":•:".., ••,••••••:' ''....H ,„...,:: -.1:t.,4$1,. ' ....::,.,......'`"7•'''' :::'':..!'•:':::•'::y•g...,..,:,'''.1';..,,..... •t:.•'''•:.:•••:::': . .., ,•■!,.;,..,.,•'.,..: :••••:;::::;:.,':::•!•'1: ',„i•':'''.::'•'V';'3!•;',:•••''',:''':'""':::: •• !•,'4:•.i41•••'''.‘, •:''''''•!‘'''''..'''.1:.A: ..4.::" "•":„,..,.‘,...:4"•T::•' •: • . ,,...„. • • •'.•• 1•4'•• :•'°':•" ••'• • '1\ ;".:;1;14''''',Y'''':',,,‘,'''''.:'!•••••'''''.\•'.',`',•'•!•••''',::'•,.',:',',..."..."414 :". "0" ...',...::':..."•'•••'''',. ',:•'•""-.,......' 1::::::',!:!0\1■:::',. .,••••••:,A",,,:•.„'"'::". ..,,d% 41 rk7ipa S 6eGserf ad, / /C -' ' (DE4) DIATOMITE OPERATIONS AT TERREBONNE, OREGON D. F. Dyrsmicl (Member A.I.M.E.) Chief Eagi.neer "' Dicalite and Perlite Divisions Great Lakes Carbon Corporation Walteria, California Permission is hereby given to publish with appropriate acknowledgment, excerpts or summaries of this Preprint not to exceed one-third of the entire text of 1ho paper. Permission to -print in more extended form subsequent to publication by the Institute must be obtained from the Secretary, Ameri- can Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers. t . American Institute of Mining and lietaliurgical Engineers 1954 Pacific Northwest Metals and Minerals Conference Industrial Minerals Division iay 1, 1954 Portland, Oregon � K1 • 4Pir DIATOMITE OPERATIONS AT ,TERREBONNE OREGON, (DE4) , LOCATION: The Terrebonne diatomite deposit and processing plant of the Great Lakes Carbon Corporation are located in Central Qregon at an elevation of 2550 ft. above sea level on the west bank of the Deschutes River. The nearest town, Terrebonne, is six miles north of the city of Redmond and seven miles east of the plant and is the rail shipping point for the finished products from the plant. HISTORY: Our first known reference to diatomite in the Terrebonne area is by the U. S. Surveyor General's Office on the original township plat which states, "0n the west side and adjacent the river in Sec. 16 is a hill com- posed of white marble. This substance is somewhat of the same nature and makes a very good substitute for white chalk." Certainly the formation wa- known even before that time since the old Willamette Valley and Cascade �.,. Mountain Military Wagon Road, shown on the original plat, crossed the Deschutes River exactly where the present County Road and Bridge which we now use is located. This old military road, sections of which are still visible, crossed through Sec. 16 right over the area which :ve have been mining for the past eighteen years. Some natural products were shipped from this deposit even prior to 1921 when the Western Diatomite Company operated the property. In 1930 the Atomite Corporation took overt' their rated capacity being approximately 25 tons per day, and the operation still being limited to the production of natural materials. A rotary kiln had been partially installed by the Atomite people but their operation was spasmodic and the installation of• this unit was never completed. -1- I y . ZONING AND CURRENT LAND USE: THE PROPOSED LAND USE DOES NOT CONFORM TO PREDOMINANT EXISTING USES. THIS LOWER BRIDGE AREA IS RURAL WITH NO HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. THE PROPOSED PUD/ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CLUSTER DEV. OF HOMES ON AVG. 2 ACRE LOTS DOES NOT CONFORM TO CURRENT LAND USE IN THIS AREA. 1. PREDOMINANT USE IS EFU ZONED, EXCLUSIVE FARM USE FOR 10 PLUS MILES. 2, THE ONLY RR-10 IS LOWER BRIDGE ESTATES, BELOW AND IS A MIN. 10 ACRE NOT A PUD CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, AS PROPOSED, OF SMALL LOTS ALONG THE RIVER RIM. 19 LOTS ON THE RIM VS. WHAT YOU SEE HERE AND A 74 LOT INITIAL PROPOSAL ON THIS REZONE FROM SM/SUFACE MINING TO AN RR-10 WITH A PUD. THERE ARE NO OTHER PUDs IN THIS AREA AT ALL-AND NO APPARENT NEED FOR ONE. NOW H z• ,Y*lt,t ., H ' °a14a i'. d 1 gyp" ' THIS IS THE CURRENT RURAL, SCENIC LOOK OF THE LOWER BRIDGE AREA- LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY AND NOT VIOLATE THE LAND USE LAWS AND THEIR INTENTIONS BY SUDDENLY ADDING HIGH DENSITY, CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT. CURRENT LAND USE IS LISTED ON THE NEXT PAGE. EXISTING SURROUNDING LAND USE AND PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA ARE: LOCATION NAME ZONING/ACREAGE North of Subject Dunns Double Eagle Ranch EFU - 416.19 Acres No. & East Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve EFU - 23 Acres East of Subject Eagle Rock Estates - ERE EFU -Avg. 25 Acre Lots East of Subject Lot 8, ERE, Wildlife Habitat CMP EFU- in WHCMP-program } North and East of BLM Land for Miles EFU - 4,033.63 Acres NW of Subject SM-Applicant's Mine SM - 410 Acres NE of Subject SM- Dunn, Surface Mining Rts. SM/EFU - 106 Acres NW of Subject Big Falls Ranch EFU - 1,756 Acres NW of above Thalacker Farm EFU -387.31 Acres W. of Subject Chapel (Alpaca Farm & Hay) EFU- 134.74 Acres A ! W. of Subject Nicol Farms (Hay) EFU - 146.37 Acres W. of Subject Volwood Farms (Hay& Cattle) EFU - 726.85 Acres NW of Subject Wertheimer Ranch (Hay&Cattle) EFU - 147.03 Acres So. of Subject Lower Bridge Estates - LBE RR10 -Avg. 10 Acre Lots Including County Lots for Wildlife Protection within Approx. 400 ft. THERE ARE NO 2 ACRE LOTS, OR PUD, CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA. AND NO OTHER TOXIC WASTE DUMP SITES WANTING TO REZONE TO RESIDENTIAL. THIS MINE SITE'S PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM TO EXISTING USES NOTED ABOVE. ABUTTING THE MINE SITE= EFU (DUNN), EFU(SM-DUNN), EFU-ERE, EFU-BORDEN BECK WILDLIFE PRESERVE, RR1O-LBE, EFU-WILDLIFE HABITAT& CONSERVATION, LOT 6 , ERE. AND COUNTY LOTS APPROX, 400 FT. EAST OF SUBJECT, "TO ENHANCE WILDLIFE HABITAT". THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS MUCH HIGHER DENSITY THEN THE ABUTTING LOTS. Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve/Lot 9-ERE/Lot 8- ERE =70.93 ACRES&ONLY 2 HOMES VS.SUBJECT=63 ACRES ON LOT 500+4.2 ACRES FOR LOTS ON LOT 1505=19 HOMES SAME LAND MASS ON EACH SIPEOF RIVER BUT DENSITY WOULD BE 19 TO 2. � o T - ,iii,i,14,1,11,4,6 «„, a�� �i !M 40 r A:. 1 N� ,. ".Jl,M .� O , "C7 we r \ s! 4 P4 W SZ co dp' {. +°n" � rp• N .0 Gam) A1 ' 4 10 4 '''' 7, '. 44,. es/ft. 't ' . *'--. cr-9 ,5 rd -C It, ''9' ,. k P 4* © O w Ov as a a °,.. I. c.. v 0 cn c0) .C] � = CO cr L7 y♦ `` „�� n f 8 I ' ! '0. t 1,+I y ,1004 O a , • w cn .a O a d r ■ t a) 43. b 43 G4 v, T3 b R ' * ° ° r-1 ; _i {k N f0 Q a C:, • gyp, C , 'V) , Y #, 4 �' +w, '''•▪' a'' .1 r + r r i is' © Lz f O w wID- c � Q f ti .4. * k. 't,w , 4 ca 8 z ccs, ,8. 4,0 W � 1 „ N 0 N C0 4.4 A Y i "4 y °� '"a y ru «. ° s , o tti ctl c n; ts0 'N j , . ) tn O � C Q. Z E” . . CO C. �� � �'�:�;:� =< Department of Environmental Quality I1regon Eastern Region Bend Office NOV I Z014 475-NE Bellevue Drive,Suite 110 John A.Kttzheber,MD,Governor Bend,OR 97701 ��y �+��t}e / (541)388-6146 PAX(541)388-8283 TTY 711 November 14,2014 Greg Daniels The Daniels Group,LLC 1111 Main Street,Suite 700 Vancouver, WA 98660 Re: DEQ/OHA Comments on Remedial Investigation Work Plan,Lower Bridge Site(Deschutes Valley Sanitation/Oremite Mine),ECSI#4950,Terrebonne,Oregon The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)and the Oregon Health Authority(OBA)has,reviewed the Remedial Investigation Work Plan for the East Parcel of the Lower Bridge Site in Terrebonne,Oregon. DEQ's and OHA's comments are presented below. OHA specific comments include: "Groundwater sampling--Groundwater sampling work plans described in Task 3 of the Work Plan are acceptable to the Oregon Health Authority(OHA)and meet the requirements laid out in OHA's February 2013 Scope of work document(attached section lID).OHA's only caution is to make.expl.icit the intention to collect the samples during a different season(i.e.,different groundwater flow conditions)than those present during the 2008 Newton Consulting Group groundwater sampling. Dust suppression—Because nuisance dust has historically been such a problematic issue for this site,the Work Plan needs to explicitly and thoroughly address dust suppression in planning any activity(including site assessment and sampling)that could potentially disturb soil on any portion of the site.OHA's February 2013 Scope of Work document(attached)included a requirement for a dust suppression plan and a method to evaluate the effectiveness of dust suppression(sections 11B and BC).Although no work is currently planned on the larger Western 410 acres of the site,that portion of the site has been a significant source of nuisances dust to the entire area and would likkty affect the Eastern parcel currently under consideration for development.Therefore,OHA requests that the Work Plan include a method to verify that nuisance dust blowing over from the western 410 acre parcel is not currently affecting or will not affect the eastern 160 acres. OHA also requests that the Work Plan include a dust suppression plan for any demolition,excavation,drilling, grading,movement of materials,or otherwise disturbing the soil on the Eastern 160-acre parcel related to site assessment work.Deschutes County has ordinances for construction-dust control,which the county applies to road and utility projects and which the applicant may consider adopting or adapting for any soil-disturbing activities on the Eastern Parcel including those related to site assessment: '17.48.400. Construction Dust Control. • A. The work shall consist of the furnishing and applying of water for the alleviation or prevention of dust nuisance in accordance with section 00280 of the current ODOT/APWA Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction. B. Responsibility for dust abatement will be the contractor's. • • • C. Watering will be done when ordered by the Road Department Director. .D. The contractor shall supply the applicant's own water source.' Project Management and Data Reporting—The project management and data reporting elements described in the Work Plan meet OHA's requirements." • DEQ specific comments include: Section 3 It may be helpful to reference one other name associated with the site;Deschutes Valley Sanitation,ECSI#35,a 1987 EPA PA/SI recommended no further action(NM)for the site and DEQ issued an NFA in 1988. The NFA was based an continued industrial use of the pro rt .- Section 5/6 • It would be helpful to add a table of soil,groundwater and QA/QC samples. Section 5-Task 2 DEQ recommends 3 or 4 soil samples be analyzed for silica content. Section 5--Task 2 TPH-Dx is specified in the work plan,but not follow-up VOC sampling,which may be warranted to determine underlying constituents. Section 5—Task 6 - I would state that the expectation is that the any piles or waste will be solid waste not hazardous waste and would be removed and disposed of at a lined Subtitle D landfill. I would further state that all solid waste piles, irrespective of sampling will be managed and disposed of accordingly. This may include the asphalt piles,etc., which could be beneficially reused on-site or elsewhere. • Section 2.0/Section 5,Task 7 • DEQ expects that the RI Reporting will include and summarize past investigations,conditions,zoning,beneficial uses,receptor pathways,etrs,as they relate to DEQ's evaluation and determination of a residential NFA for this parcel. Fugitive Dust Consistent with OHA's concerns,the Work Plan needs to outline how the contractor will take reasonable precautions to control fugitive emissions(dust). See the rules outlined below from Division 208. DIVISION 208, VISIBLE EMISSIONS AND NUISANCE REQUIREMENTS, OAR 340-208-0010 Definitions The definitions in OAR 340-200-0020 and this rule apply to this division.If the same term is defined in this rule and OAR 340-200-0020; the definition in this rule applies to this division. (I)"Abate,'means to eliminate the nuisance or suspected nuisance by reducing or managing the emissions using reasonably available practices. The degree of abatement will depend on an evaluation • of all of the circumstances of each case and does not necessarily mean completely eliminating the emissions. (2)"Air Contaminant"means a dust,fume,gas, mist, odor, smoke,pollen, vapor,soot, carbon, acid or particulate matter, or any combination thereof (3)"Emission"means a release into the outdoor atmosphere of air contaminants. (4) "Fuel Burning Equipment"means a boiler or process heater that burns a solid, liquir or gaseous fuel, the principal purpose of which is to produce heat or power by indirect heat transfer. • (5) "Fugitive Emissions"means emissions of any air contaminant that escape to the atmosphere from any point or area not identifiable as a stack vent, duct, or equivalent opening. (6) "New source"means,for purposes of OAR 340-20$-0110,any air contaminant source installed, constructed, or modified after June 1, 1970. property, or the substantial and unreasonable invasion of a right common to members of the t of real (7) "Nuisance"means a substantial and unreasonable interference with another s use enjoyment public. • Fugitive Emission Requirements, OAR 340-208-0200 Applicability OAR 340-2080200 through 340-208-0210 apply: (1) Within Special Control Areas,designated in OAR 340-204-0070;and (2)In other areas when the department determines a nuisance exists and should be.controlled,and the control measures are practicable. [NOTE:This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340-200-0040.] Stat.Auth:ORS 468&ORS 468A Stats.Implemented: ORE 4684.025 Hist.:DEQ 37,f 2-15-72, ef. 3-1-72;DEQ 4-1993,f&cert. ef. 3-10-93;DEQ 14-1999,f&cert.ef. 10-14-99,Renumbered from 340-021-0055;DEQ 2-2001,f&cert. of 2-5-01 340-208-0210 Requirements (1) When fugitive emissions escape from a building or equipment in such a manner and amount as to create a nuisance or to violate any regulation, the department may order the owner or operator to abate the nuisance or to bring the facility into compliance.In addition to other means of obtaining compliance the department may order that the building or equipment in which processing handling and storage are done be tightly closed and ventilated in such a way that air contaminants are controlled or removed before being emitted to the open air. (2)No person may cause or permit any materials to be handled, transported, or stored;or a building, its• appurtenances, or a road to be used constructed, altered, repaired or demolished;or any equipment to be operated,without taking reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. Such reasonable precautions may include, but not be limited to the following: (a) Use,where possible, of water or chemicals for control of dust in the demolition of existing buildings or structures,construction operations, the grading of roads or the clearing of land; (b)Application of'asphalt, oil, water, or other suitable chemicals on unpaved roads, materials stockpiles, and other surfaces which can create airborne dusts; (c)Full or partial enclosure of materials stockpiles in cases where application of oil, water, or chemicals are not sufficient to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne; (d)Installation and use of hoods,fans, and fabric filters to enclose and vent the handling of dusty materials; (e)Adequate containment during sandblasting or othersimilar operations; (f)Covering, at all times when in motion, open bodied trucks transporting materials likely to become airborne; ' (g)The prompt removal from paved streets of earth or other material that does or may become airborne. • • If you have any questions or need clarification of any of the issues addressed in this letter,please do not hesitate to call or email me at(541)633-2012 or anderson.david @deq.state.or.us orDavid Farrer at 971-673-0971 or via, email at david.g.farrerr@,state.or.us Sincerely, David Anderson Eastern Region Cleanup Program Manager Attachments(1) cc: Site File - David Farrer,Oregon Health Authority William:Groves,Deschutes County Scott Wallace,The Wallace Group Frank Messina,DEQ Susan Christensen,'DEQ • 9 NE V V ION 521 SW 6u'Street,Suite 100 CONSULTANTS INC. Redmond,Oregon 97756 Earth,Water and Rock specialists Phone:(541)504-9960 FAX:(541)504-9961 Memorandum To: Tia Lewis,Attorney Date: May 8, 2008 Schwabe,Williamson and Wyatt 549 SW Mill View Way From: Dick Nichols,P.E. Suite 101 Bend,OR 97702 Project Lower Bridge Name: Subject: Response to Paul Dewey Project No.: 1047-101 Comments/Submittals at April 22, 2008 hearing. Background At the April 22, 2008, hearing concerning a proposed zone change to allow rural residential development at Lower Bridge (Project), Paul Dewey provided testimony and written submittals concerning impact of well pumping associated with the Project on the Deschutes River. Specifically,he was concerned about the impact caused by a well constructed to provide water to an irrigation pivot installed to abate a serious dust problem at the former mine site. In addition, he expressed concerned about the impact caused from wells that could ultimately be used to provide domestic water to the Project. As a basis for his concern, he provided a copy of a hydrogeologic analysis entitled: A Case Study: Thornburgh Resort Water Resources Impact Evaluation, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon produced by Mark Yinger Associates and Northwest Land & Water, Inc, February 2008, hereinafter referred to as the Yinger report. Responses to these concerns are provided below. Summary of Yinger Report Relative to Deschutes River Impacts The Yinger report analyzed the impact of groundwater pumping at the proposed Thornburgh resort located south of Cline Butte. In brief,the Yinger report concluded that ground water pumping at Thornburgh would reduce ground water discharge in the Deschutes River and Whychus Creek. This would reduce flow in these streams and would increase stream temperatures because the ground water discharge to these streams is relatively cool water compared to the temperatures of the streams up-stream of the ground water discharge areas. Response to Concern about Impact of Irrigation Well The irrigation well has been recently constructed by the mine's owner as part of a dust abatement program that has been ordered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The dust abatement program must be implemented regardless of the proposed zone change and,therefore, is irrelevant to the consideration of the zone change. Exhibit PH-14 1of4 I Newton Consultants Memorandum Project Number 1047-101 Page 2 May 8,2008 In any case,the Oregon Water Resources Department issued a Final Order on April 24, 2008 for Limited License Application LL-1114 to use ground water to abate dust and to establish vegetation. The license was issued to the mine owners:Franklin S.Nolan Revocable Trust, Robert L. Reimenschneider,and Norman L.Wiegand. To offset impacts to the Deschutes River, the Final Order requires that groundwater pumping from the irrigation well be mitigated with 252 acre feet annually in the Middle Deschutes River. Response to Concern about Impact of Groundwater Pumping for Domestic Water for the Project This matter was addressed in the applicant's submittal which included an attachment produced by Newton Consultants,Inc.,entitled: WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY REPORT, Proposed Lower Bridge Development Project,Deschutes County, Oregon. Beginning on page 10 of this report,the impact is addressed as follows: "The maximum peak daily water need for the project is 0.49'cubic feet per second. This is worst case and is unlikely to occur. The project site is in a zone of ground water discharge to the Deschutes River and some potential pumping effect on flow could occur. Assuming as a worst case that well pumping on the site has an immediate and direct one- to-one effect in quantity and time on river flow (which is a conservative assumption and not likely to occur), pumping of 0.49' cfs during the peak water need period could reduce river flows by a maximum of 0.49' cfs immediately adjacent to the site. Current minimum river flows immediately adjacent to the site during low flow are estimated to be approximately 72 cfs (estimated flow based upon limited flow records at Lower Bridge and discussions with Kyle Gorman, Bend Regional Manager for WRD) near the south site boundary. Pumping at the maximum rate could reduce river flows by about 0.68" percent in this direct one-to-one impact scenario. This amount is insignificant and would not register on flow gages currently used to measure flow on the river. "Considering there are two ground water zones reflected in well log data and other information discussed above, it is possible that the potential impact of pumping Project wells could be dispersed over longer reaches of the river through well construction provisions. Wells could be constructed to seal off the entire upper ground water zone and focus water withdrawals from the lower zone. This approach may help distribute pumping effects through a larger area of the lower zone, and into reaches of the river further downstream from the site where the river flow is greater. If the impact to the river were shifted on river mile further downstream,the impact of pumping the maximum rate could be a reduction of approximately 0.32"' percent of the river flow near River Mile 129 (river flow is approximately 155 cfs), assuming an immediate and direct one-to-one response to pumping which represents a worst-case scenario that is not expected to occur. Again,a reduction of 0.32 percent would not register on river flow gages at this flow rate. The concept of deepened well seals to avoid ground water withdrawals directly from the upper zone and focusing withdrawals on the lower zone is a reasonable approach to Exhibit PH-14 2 of 4 I 1 Newton Consultants Memorandum Project Number 1047-101 Page 3 May 8,2008 supply water for the project while recognizing needs to help mitigate potential impacts on river flows. "Relative to the potential impact on river temperature, from information available on the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council website, the highest 7 day average maximum temperature in the Deschutes River at Steelhead Falls (approximately 5 river miles downstream from the Project) was 18.3°C for the period July 1 through September 18, 2007. This period of the year tends to show the maximum temperature increases in water bodies due to solar heating and other climatic factors. "According to Figure 17 of the USGS report on the Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon(Report 00-4162), the increase in Deschutes River flow at Steelhead Falls due to ground water discharge in May 1994 and May 1995 is about 166 cfs. The lowest flow in the Deschutes River at Lower Bridge according to the period of record (October, 1994- September, 1997) is 32 cubic feet per second(cfs). According to Kyle Gorman,Regional Manager for the Central Region of the Oregon Water Resources Department, due to revised river management,the low flow in the Deschutes River below Bend has increased by 40 cfs or more. So, based upon this, the likely low flow in the Deschutes River at Steelhead Falls is about 238 cfs(166+32+40). "There is no information about the temperature of ground water discharge at Steelhead Falls. There is information, however, from Alder Springs (approximately 6 miles to the north of the Project) that is within a mile of the confluence of Whychus Creek and the Deschutes River. The average temperature of Alder Springs water is 11°C. In addition, groundwater temperature is occasionally recorded on well logs and a review of this information indicates that 11°C is a reasonable value for ground water temperature in this area. "The projected change in temperature can be estimated by calculating the current thermal mass of the river flow at Steelhead Falls and removing or subtracting the thermal mass of the projected ground water recharge. Using this thermal mass balance analysis and the above information, if ground water discharge flow to the Deschutes River is reduced by a maximum daily flow from the Project of 0.49' cfs (as a result of the worst case scenario presented in the preceding paragraphs) and the temperature of ground water discharge is 11°C, the average increase in river temperature at Steelhead Falls would be expected to be no more than 0.0151V°C. "Thermisters used by DEQ only record data to the nearest 0,1 degree Celsius. A change of 0.015° C would be insignificant and would not be detected or recorded by DEQ's thermisters. Exhibit PH-14 3 of 4 Newton Consultants Memorandum Project Number 1047-101 Page 4 May 8,2008 Summary In summary,water will be pumped from the recently installed irrigation well to abate the dust problem regardless of the outcome of the zone change. Its impact on Deschutes River flow will be mitigated pursuant to the requirements of the Oregon Water Resources Department. The domestic water use of the Project will not have a measurable impact on the Deschutes River as indirectly implied by the Yinger report that was submitted by Mr.Dewey. In the copy of the report submitted on April 22,2008,this flow figure was reported as 0.35 cfs. It should have been 1 0.49 cfs. In the copy of the report submitted on April 22,2008,this percentage value was reported as 0.49%. It should have been 0.68% "'In the copy of the report submitted on April 22,2008,this percentage value was reported as 0.23%, It should have been 0.32% "This increase in temperature is different form the copy of the report submitted on April 22,2008. Based upon the change in maximum domestic flow from 0.35 cfs to 0.49 cfs,the increase in stream temperature is slightly higher from the 0.01°C value in the report that was submitted on April 22,2008. Exhibit PH-14 4 of