HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-13-11 Applicant LUBA DocsBRUCE W. WHITE, ATTORNEY, LLC
June 10, 2011
Hand Delivered
Board of County Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200
Bend, Oregon 97701
Subject: SP -07-462 and CU -07-102 for Surface Mining and Crushing Operations on Surface
Mining Site #303
Please find enclosed Applicant's written materials in advance of Monday's hearing on the remand of
the above -referenced land use permits. These materials consist of the following:
• Memorandum of Bruce W. White and attached exhibits
• Testimony of Pat McClain with attached exhibits 1-5
• Letter from Andrew Siemens of Siemens & Associate
• Letter from Jerry Powell
The Memorandum of Bruce White is arranged in order of the issues that were remanded back to the
County and addresses legal issues associated with the remand. Similarly, the letter of Pat McClain is
organized generally by topics that are implicated by the remand. The letter from Jerry Powell
addresses his work in the field in defining the boundaries of the mining site and locating the
processing spots on the property in the event the Board wishes to make a site visit. The letter of
Andrew Siemens addresses issues related to fugitive dust emissions from the headwall.
Following up on Commissioner Unger's inquiry about making a site visit, the applicant is willing to
allow for site visits by individual Board members, but does not wish such a site visit to constitute a
public meeting. Pursuant to MSHA mining regulations, a representative of Latham Excavation would
need to be present for safety reasons, but would not otherwise communicate with the Board or
explain the site.
Sincerely,
Bruce W. White
c. Latham Excavation
Paul Dewey
Dave Kanner
Laurie Craghead
Paul Blikstad
P.O. BOX 1298 • BEND, OR • 97709
PHONE: (541) 382-2085
Analysis of Issues on Remand
Mark Latham Excavation, Inc.
SP -07-46/ CU -07-102
(Johnson Road Pit — Surface Mining Site 303)
This memo analyzes the issues that were remanded by LUBA to the County. These are the issues
that the County must address on remand. All other issues that were appealed and affirmed by
LUBA or that could have been appealed and were not and that are not implicated by the
remanded issues are not in play in the Board's consideration of the site plan and conditional use
on remand.
Those issued are as follows:
(1) Whether Tumalo Tuff which overlies the Bend Pumice can be mined for sale under the
1990 ESEE;
(2) Whether supplied screening is required to screen the Hoffman #1 residence from views of
the mining site;
(3) Whether supplied screening is required to screen Tumalo State Park and the pre -1990
residences across the Deschutes River from views of the mining site;
(4) Compliance of the piles of top soil with the '/4 -mile setback;
(5) Compliance with the incremental reclamation "requirement" in the ESEE's Program to
Meet the Goal;
(6) Compliance with air quality standards regarding the headwall;
(7) Compliance with setbacks for the proposed northeast and southeast crushing sites; and
(8) Compliance with screening requirements for the northeast and southeast crushing sites.
These issues are taken up below in the order in which they appear above. I expect to supply a
more bulleted version with references to helpful portions of the record at the hearing.
Mining of Tumalo Tuff
This issue involves whether the ESEE adopted by the Board in 1990 covers removal and sale of
the Tumalo Tuff resource that overlies the Bend Pumice resource, which is the only resource
specifically inventoried for the site. LUBA determined that the County's findings were
inadequate to support the County's April 2009 decision to allow mining of the Tuff for sale.
While LUBA indicated this issue could be resolved by conducting a new inventory and ESEE
process specifically addressing the Tuff, it also left the door open for "a better explanation" for
1
its determination that the Tuff, as well as the Pumice, could be mined under the existing
inventory and ESEE determination for the site:
"We do not mean to suggest that in all cases where a different; non -inventoried
mineral is found at an inventoried mineral resource site that a proposal to mine
that non -inventoried mineral will require an amended ESEE analysis. Mineral
deposits are rarely uniform, and where incidental mining of a non -inventoried
mineral resource is proposed, we see no impediment in Goal 5, OAR chapter 660,
division 016 or elsewhere to a local government issuing a mining permit pursuant
to its program to achieve the goal for that site that includes incidental mining of a
non -inventoried resource that would otherwise not be entitled to Goal 5
protection.
But the scope of protection for incidental reining of a non -inventoried mineral
resource in the absence of a Goal 5 analysis of that resource must be sufficiently
narrow, or the Goal 5 planning process loses all integrity. In our view, if mining
of the inventoried resource requires removal of the non -inventoried resource, and
the non -inventoried resource resembles the inventoried resource in economic use
and value, the means of extraction and processing, and the type and intensity of
impacts on pre-existing conflicting uses, then it is more likely that a local
government can adopt a sustainable conclusion that the mining of that non -
inventoried resource is incidental to mining of the inventoried resource, and
therefore issue a permit for such mining in the absence of a new or amended Goal
5 analysis evaluating the non -inventoried resource, Stated in different terms,
mining of an uninvenloried resource can be accurately, viewed as incidental to
mining of an inventoried resource if the local government adopts a conclusion
supported by the record that, had it known of the quality and quantity of the non -
inventoried resource when it adopted the original ESEE analysis and program to
meet the goal, the differences between inventoried and non -inventoried resources
are sufficiently minimal in terms of extraction methods, conflicts, etc., that the
local government would have chosen to balance the conflicts in the same way, and
would have adopted the same program to achieve the goal.''
(LUBA, p. 16.)
LUBA also found that the quantity of an inventoried material set forth on the inventory did not
preclude a mining operator from mining the full amount of the resource, even if, for example the
real amount in the ground turned out to be two million cubic yards of material compared to an
inventoried amount of 750,000 cubic years. (LUBA, p. 14.) Thus, in the absence of a time
limitation, the impacts associated with duration of mining is not a factor to be considered.
LUBA's primary concern was that in the absence of information about the extraction of the Tuff,
the County's findings did not adequately address concerns that the ESEE may not have
adequately accounted for issues related to the potential size of the headwall when viewed from
Tumalo State Park and the amount of dust that might emanate from the headwall. (LUBA
Decision, p. 20.) LUBA found unpersuasive the Board's comparison to the Program to Meet the
2
Goal for nearby sites 304 and 305/306, in particular because the Board had imposed specific.
additional site-specific ESEE conditions for those sites where none been specified for the subject
site (Site 303).
Latham Response on Remand:
Latham believes that consistent with LUBA's decision, the County can make findings that the
ESEE is consistent with incidental mining of the Tumalo Tuff. LUBA correctly noted that the
Tuff must necessarily be excavated and removed in order to expose and excavate the Bend
Pumice and that the general nature of the excavation activities and their impacts was the same or
similar to the impacts of mining the Bend Pumice. The issue for LUBA was the headwall — both
visually, particularly as it related to the Park and as a source of dust. However, the generic
nature of the ESEE gives no basis for the Board to have made a different decision than if the Tuff
had been explicitly considered for mining. The Board's deliberations and findings in this and the
ESEEs for the other nearby mining sites did not give any consideration as to what form the
excavation might take nor how much material the cut might expose. (See ESEES for Site 303.
LUBA Record, p. 1368; Site 304. 1556; Site 305/306, 1570.)
If the Board had been particularly concerned about the landform that might be left by mining at
Site 303, and its impact on the view, it would have been expected to have done something more
than parrot the same generic, non -prescriptive langua ge of concern about visual impacts it
expressed in Condition No. 23(b) to pay "particular attention ... to screening from Tumalo State
Park or the eastern, northeastern and southeastern boundaries." That exact same language is
found in the visual impacts finding for Site 304 (Condition 23(b) and for Site 305/306 (Condition
23(b)). Sites 304 and 305/306 were inventoried with considerably less resource than was Site
303 (225,000 cubic yards for Site 304 and 125,000 cubic yards for Site 305/306). Site 303 had 3
times as much resource as Site 304 and 5 times as much resource as Site 305/306 and yet the
Board applied the same general ESEE condition language with regard to visual impacts for each
of these sites. Furthermore, the Board's decision resulted in applying the same basic level of
scenic protection found in the ESEE's for virtually all the various ESEEs — the generic standards
of the visual screening criteria of DCC 18.52.110(B). In the absence of specific information
about how the resource might be excavated — because there was none of the information that we
now know about the stratigraphy of the site. the Board had absolutely no basis for making any
judgments whatsoever about the nature of the headwall or landform that might result if more
material than just that assumed to be encompassed by the pumice resource were to be excavated.
For all the Board knew, the resource might have been located primarily away from the ridge area
to the south, which might have resulted in more of a hole in the ground than a side -cut
excavation that had potential implications for views from the park and river.
Contrast this with the very specific additional conditions that were attached to Sites 304 and
305/306. Site 304 had two specific conditions that went beyond the generic ESEE conditions of
approval: a prohibition on crushing and a prohibition on accessing the site at any point other
than the northern boundary of the property. The prohibition on crushing was based upon the site
being in close proximity to Tumalo State Park. This was a relationship that the Board could
clearly see from the facts: how far away the site was from the park and the river. Similarly, the
site specific condition relating to where access could be taken at the property responded to a
3
physical relationship that was evident to the Board: where the property was in relationship to
surrounding streets. Again, with regard to Site 303/306, the site-specific conditions directly
related to observable physical relationships. In its condition 23 (d), the Board placed a limit on
blasting, realizing that the mine butted directly up against a residential subdivision with smaller
lots (as opposed to the larger EFU-zoned lots that abutted Site 303). In addition, again in
responding to the observably close proximity of mining to the Tumalo Rim subdivision the
Board placed a specific time limit for excavation of one year.
The facts are much more developed today than they were in 1990 a nd therefore i t is not
appropriate to import the specifics of the impact arguments made by opponents today regarding
mining of the Tuff as a measure of what the Board would have decided back in 1990. Otherwise,
it would be appropriate for the Board to make findings related to whether the Tuff would
necessarily be restored to the hillside or to what degree the site can actually be seen from the
Park. It certainly cannot be concluded from this record that allowing the Tuff to be mined will
necessarily result in an increased headwall. Depending upon what reclamation plan for the site is
approved, the same disturbance of the land could easily result from a decision to allow only
mining of the pumice, than if the Tuff is also allowed to be mined.
The same kinds of considerations apply to issues related to dust from the headwall. The Board
adopted the same generic findings related to dust for the subject site as it did for Sites 304 and
305/306, despite the much larger amount of material inventoried for Site 303. The Board had no
basis to assess how much of a headwall might be left and therefore there is no basis to say that
this kind of impact would even been contemplated by the Board in 1990.
LUBA's determination that the site is not restricted to excavation of the amount of material also
favors the applicant's position. LUBA would have had no problem if the site turned out to have
2 million cubic yards of pumice. What is the difference between that and an extra amount of
material that includes much of the same kind of material as that that was inventoried? The Tuff
was produced from the same volcanic eruption as the Pumice and has inclusions of the Pumice in
it that can be used and marketed for the same purposes as the Pumice, at it relates to horticultural
uses. In the alternative or as an additional basis for allowing the Tuff to be mined, the Board
might find that the resource really isn't a different resource at all. but that the Tuff is simply an
extension of the Pumice and should be treated the same as the pumice (in the nature of sand and
gravel in a river -rock site),
Given the foregoing. the Board certainly has a basis for making findings that will address
LUBA's concerns.
Finally, as Pat McClain mentions in his testimony, the Board should be concerned about the
precedent a decision to not allow mining the Tuff could set and the potential economic
consequences for such a decision. The Tumalo Tuff is widely used as construction fill in public.
commercial and residential construction. None of the sites from which that material is currently,
extracted in the Bend area have that material inventoried. (See Ordinance 90-025 (Inventory
Ordinance), Exhibit G. Sites 282/283 (then Crown Pacific, now Taylor Northwest), LURA
Record, p. 1473; Site 381 (then Pieratt Brothers, now Able), 1474, See also Site 283 ESEE.
LUBA Record, p. 1543: and Site 381 ESEE, LUBA Record, p. .) The impacts on potentially
4
shutting that material out of the construction market could potentially have drastic consequences
on the cost of public, commercial and residential construction, particularly if fill material must be
trucked in from remote areas.
County staff's issues matrix seems to indicate that the Board previously decided that the
headwall was not covered by the ESEE. This conclusion is not supported by the terms of the
County's prior decision. Nothing in the discussion and findings by the Board regarding the
scope of the ESEE (on pages 14-15 of its 2009 decision) addresses the headwall separately from
the site itself. To the contrary, the Board's discussion in the body of its 2009 decision noted the
lack of anything in the 1990 ESEE findings addressing the nature of the actual excavation that
would be necessary to mine the and the lack of any information regarding the nature of the
reclamation that would be required. In addition, in Condition 23, the Board's decision expressly
allowed the headwall to be mined in the event that the applicant were able to demonstrate that
dust from the headwall could be controlled on-site. The Board could not have allowed for the
possibility of mining the headwall if it had already decided that mining the headwall was
contrary to the ESEE. Staff may have picked up a statement by the Board on Page 2 of its
decision that indicates that mining the headwall was not within the scope of the ESEE, but that
language appears to be an inadvertent mistake, given the way the balance of the decision
addresses this issue, and it should be treated as such.
Visual Protection of Hoffman #1 Residence (Site Plan Issue)
This issue involves whether the applicant must be required to screen the Hoffman #1 residence
from views of the mining site. The Hoffman #1 residence (a pre -1990 residence) is located in a
depression next to the Deschutes River. Views of the mining site are obscured by an intervening
ridge between the Hoffman residence and the mining site on the south end of the Hoffman
property. In its 2009 decision, the Board determined that supplied screening to protect the
Hoffman residence was not required. LUBA determined that the scope of noise and dust -
sensitive uses was the area of the home site and not the entire property. However, LUBA
determined that the County's findings/ interpretation of the screening requirements were
inadequate to support a finding that screening should not be required.
Latham Response on Remand:
Latham believes that given LUBA's pointed analysis of the language of the topographical
exception to supplied screening and the actual language of that exception ("topography," without
reference to whether the topographical feature was manmade or not), no screening can be
required to protect the Hoffman #1 house, because the topography is such that supplied screening
on the applicant's property would be obscured and made ineffectual by the intervening ridge and
by the fact that the only portion of the site that could possibly be seen from the Hoffman #1
residence (the top of the headwall) is located at such a great distance from ground level that no
screening could ever practically obscure that aspect of the excavation.
The Hoffmans had argued in 2009 and before that the vantage point was the property line, not
the area of the house and therefore they did not provide information on what the views of the site
from their house were. Therefore, there is little in the record as to what the Hoffmans can
5
actually see from the house, and without access to the property, applicant's information on actual
views, if any, from the Hoffman #1 dwelling is limited. As Pat McClain's testimony indicates, it
appears that any view of the headwall from inside the Hoffman #1 dwelling would be oblique at
best. Pictures of the Hoffman #1 house indicate that it is surrounded by vegetation, so it would
not appear that there would be views of the headwall from the area immediately surrounding the
house and the presence of the horse barn between the house and the site would also screen any of
the headwall lying below about 3380 feet. In the final analysis, the actual views that the
Hoffmans may have from their main house would not be relevant because due to topography,
those portions of the site that are potentially visible from the house cannot effectively be
screened.
The staff matrix states that either or both DCC 18.52.110(B)(6)(b) or (c) would apply. Latham
concurs, provided staff is referring to conditions related to the headwall itself or some physical
condition on the applicant's property (and not the ridge on the Hoffman property). Following
from LUBA's discussion of this issue, Latham believes the better exception to ground the
Board's findings on would be the one found at 18.52.110(B)(6)(b), because as LUBA noted,
screening planted at ground level would be obscured by the intervening ridge on the Hoffman
property and in any event couldn't reach a height to obscured the highest reaches of the
headwall.' Given the topography there clearly is no degree to which any screening would be in
any way effective to screen the upper reaches of the headwall from the Hoffman #1 house (if in
fact the house has views of the headwall).
Visual Protection of Upper Elevation of Tumalo State Park and Pre -1990 Residences Across
River
This issue involves whether the applicant must be required to screen the mine from view from
Tumalo State Park and from pre -1990 houses located near Tumalo State Park across the river.
The County did not require that screening be supplied. LUBA found the County's reasoning and
findings in interpreting the screening requirements to be confusing and illogical and remanded.
The mining site is screened from most of the park and the areas most heavily used along the river
and in the campgrounds by the ridge that runs along the river (the river flows in a canyon of
sorts) and by a ridge extending along the south end of the Hoffman property and the extensive
intervening vegetation, most of which lies on Tumalo State Park property. It is only at the higher
elevations on the small nob- above the campground that the mining site becomes plainly visible
to park users (and presumably to any nearby pre -1990 houses that adjoin the upper levels of the
park):
This same rationale would apply to the homes on Ridgewood Drive, to the extent they are in the impact area.
From topo maps, the elevation of the top of the nob appears to be 3.320'. (See Exhibit 1, Map 1. A topo map
covering the pit site is included as Exhibit I, Map 2.)
There arc four houses across the river north of O.B. Riley Road that have elevated views of the site. Those houses
are listed in Table 1, attached hereto and shown on the attached exhibits. From a topo map of the area, those houses
appear to be at an elevation of 3,340 feet or about 20-35 feet above the existing pit floor in elevation. Two of those
houses clearly do not qualify for protection. "Phe Massey house falls outside the 1/2 -mile impact area that surrounds
the site (corresponds with the SMIA zone) and therefore lies outside the zone of protection afforded by the SM
6
Latham Response on Remand:
Latham believes that the preferable approach is to pick up on LUBA's cue from statements
analyzing the visual protection for the Hoffman #1 residence and the applicability/ interpretation
of topographical exception to screening to find that the topographical exception is applicable in
situations such as this even though the disturbance to the landscape is manmade. (LUBA, p. 35.
n. 21.) In this case, it is clear that the relative height of the Park nob and the two adjacent pre -
1990 residences versus the mining site and the topography of the mining site itself — the heights
of the excavation, gives rise to topographical constraints in providing effective screening of the
mining site. The language of the screening performance standard and the exceptions to that
standard is convoluted and encourages circular reasoning that could make the exceptions almost
never applicable. For example, the qualifier "to the extent" in the screening performance
standard can be read to indicate that so long as supplied screening is effective to some extent, it
must be supplied, even when it would largely be ineffective. However, in the case of supplied
screening by berms, there is no performance standard to measure to what degree supplied
screening must obscure the mining site; the performance standard at DCC 18.52.110(B)(5)(b)
states no height for discharging the screening responsibility. In light of this. the Board should
adopt a common sense reading of the screening standard: If supplied screening cannot totally
obscure the offensive view and an exception is applicable, then no screening should be required.
This would be consistent with Goal 5's requirement that performance standards must be clear
and objective.
Applying the maxim of statutory construction that words should not be interpreted to make any
portion of a law irrelevant, Latham's position is that once an exception applies, no screening
should be required because the language of DCC 18.52.110(B)(6) states that the site must be
screened to meet the standards of DCC 18.52.110(B)(2) "unless one of the exceptions of DCC
18.52.110(B)(6) applies". Because one of the exceptions applies, in accordance with the
language of DCC 18.52.110(B)(1) the screening standard of DCC 18.52.110(B)(2) cannot apply.
This interpretation would avoid the meaningless exercise of supplying screening that in reality
has little effect in attempting to screen a site such as the Latham site.
If the Board believes the standard should be interpreted to require screening to some extent, even
though it would not be totally effective, then the applicant proposes to discharge that
responsibility by constructing a 12 -foot high berm along the eastern edge of the mining area.
starting at the northeast corner of the mining area and extending across the flat area, with
retained vegetative screening within 50 feet of the mining boundary going up the hill from there
visual protection zoning regulations. See Ordinance 90-025, Finding 31, Page 10. The pre -1990 house on the Aller
property falls outside of the '/2 mile impact area; that house is being replaced by a post -1990 house that would not be
entitled to protection. Whether the Klein house (the red house in pictures of houses overlooking the site) qualify is
debatable, because the house appears to just touch the SMIA zone (see Table 1, Exhibit 3). The Scolman house
predates 1990 and clearly falls within the impact area delineated by the SMIA zone. Although the Scolman house
has a 2002 addition and a SMIA approval for that addition, that doesn't appear to convert the dwelling to a post -
1990 house. For the purposes of this analysis we will treat both the Scolman and Kliene houses as pre -1990 houses
that require protection.
in accordance with retained screening requirements.4 The berm would be hydro -seeded with a
mixture of mulch and native grass seed, such as rye grass, in accordance with DOGAMI best
management practices. An offset opening would allow the passage of vehicular traffic across the
berm.
Per OAR 340-035-035(5)(g) or (h), any noise regulation attendant to operating equipment
necessary to build that berm (involving an excavator and a dump truck) would be exempt from
noise regulations.
Top soil Piles within 1/4 -Mile Setbacks (Site Plan Issue)
This issue involves whether the piles of topsoil on the property. most of which pre -date the
applicant's ownership of the site and are now vegetated, must meet the 1/4 -mile setbacks for
"storage of mineral and aggregate" (shown on the site plan by radiused arcs centered on the
nearby pre -1990 dwellings). As noted in Pat McClain's testimony, some of those piles are within
the 1/4 -mile setback from nearby pre -1990 houses. The County found in its 2009 decision that the
setbacks did not apply to such top soil piles and accordingly did not require that they be moved
or make findings for an exception to the setback. LUBA found that the setback did apply to
these piles and required the piles to comply with setbacks.
Latham Response on Remand:
Latham proposes to move the topsoil pile that it brought into the site that is closest to the
Hoffman property in order to come into compliance. (See Exhibit 4 to Pat McClain's testimony.)
With regard to the piles of topsoil that were placed on site by Caseade Pumice (see Exhibit 4 to
Pat McClain's testimony) upon Cascade Pumice's initial excavation of the site. Latham proposes
to leave such piles stored where they are under the exception criteria of DCC 1 8.52.090(B)(1 )
and (2). The small size of the parcel and the proximity of conflicting protected residential uses
allows limited space outside the '/4 -mile setbacks for placing such top soil piles in a manner that
would not interfere with mining operations elsewhere on the site or that would not conflict with
mandates to retain existing screening vegetation (to the west of the mining area). We believe that
the reference to parcel size as a listed factor in DCC 18.52.090(B)(1) makes it a legitimate
consideration to consider the physical constraints of the site in being able to meet the setback
criteria. With respect to "existing vegetation," the need to maintain the existing vegetation to the
west of the pit puts that area off-limits. The existing vegetation on the piles themselves, as
shown in Exhibit 1V to Pat McClain's testimony. is another justification for leaving the piles
where they lie. Leaving the piles where they are will have the least impact in terms of noise and
dust for the simple reason that moving them to a location. possible, outside the 1/4 -mile setbacks
It should be understood that retention of existing natural screening would apply only to the perimeter of the mining
footprint that is the subject of this application. Should the applicant or a subsequent property owner seek to expand
the mining footprint on the property to a point beyond the retained vegetative screening, the screening issue would
be addressed without regard to the screening required on the more limited footprint.
8
would involve the noise and dust associated with scooping up the piles and transporting them to
a different location.
For new piles, applicant would either locate them outside the 1/4 -mile setbacks in the center area
of the pit or would propose to locate them within the 1/4 mile setback of the houses to the south,
pursuant to the reasoning adopted by the Board in its 2009 decision in this case (unchallenged by
the Hoffmans at LUBA) to authorize stockpiles within that setback.
Incremental Reclamation (Site Plan Issue)
This issue relates to whether the County must address the incremental reclamation `'requirement"
of the Site 303 ESEE's Program to Meet the Goal found at Finding 23(e). The Board found that
reclamation was within DOGMAI's purview and found the provision couldn't be applied by the
County, given the explicit reference in Condition/ Finding 23(e) to DOGAMI approval of such a
plan. LUBA found that the County could not completely ignore this provision and could address
this issue by a condition of approval that explicitly delegate consideration of incremental
reclamation to DOGAMI.
Lathan Response on Remand:
ESEE Condition 23(e) reads as follows:
"Excavation shall be limited to five acres with ongoing incremental reclamation (subject to
DOGAMI review and approval)."
That condition is partially implemented through DCC 18.52.110(K), which addresses the 5 -acre
extraction size limitation. The section specifies that the 5 -acre limitation does not apply to roads.
equipment storage areas, processing sites, etc. Basically, the only areas that are subject to the 5 -
acre limitation are the mineral extraction areas. The Hoffmans argued to LUBA that the
County's decision failed to ensure that the 5 -acre limitation would be adhered to. However, in
light of the fact that Condition of Approval 8 of the County's approval specifically limited the
applicant's extraction area to 5 acres, LUBA found this aspect of the Hoffman's appeal had no
merit. Accordingly, the issue of the applicant's compliance with the 5 -acre limitation is not an
issue on remand. The only issue is the "ongoing incremental reclamation" requirement of ESEE
Condition 23(e).
It appears that this requirement has not been interpreted by the County prior to this case. Except
for the ultimate conclusion the Board drew on this issue in its 2009 decision. Latham believes the
Board's findings are as apt today as they were then in expressing the uncertainties and the lack of
authority and technical competence the County has in areas involving reclamation. The phrase is
no less vague and uninformative today than it was in 2009.
In addition, there are the practical realities in a regulatory arena where DOGAMI holds the only
regulatory authority in an approval process that involves only the applicant and DOGAMI. See,
e.g., ORS 517.780. The County can provide comments during the reclamation process (see OAR
9
632-030-0030(1)(d)(B)). but it has no ability to dictate what reclamation activities or techniques
can be required or when. Those decisions are exclusively within the purview of DOGAMI.
The applicant has the right to change its reclamation plan during the life of the mining operation
as part of a plan amendment. See, e.g., OAR 632-030-0035. In this case, DOGAMI has
specifically stated that a proposal to change from the plan's current final slope of 1 '/2 to 1 to a
steeper slope could be changed and wouldn't necessarily require even a formal reclamation plan
amendment. LUBA Record, p. 723. Nothing in the County's ordinance would preclude or
override an applicant's ability to seek such a reclamation plan amendment. (From reviewing the
reclamation standard relating the vertical walls, it appears that if the slope is determined to be
stable by a licensed geo-tech, the option of going to a vertical headwall is all but allowed. OAR
632-030-0027(1)(c).'.)
In light of this regulatory context, any response by the County other than to write a condition
defer this issue of incremental reclamation to DOGAMI would be entirely inappropriate. Latham
believes that consistent with LUBA's conclusion. an appropriate condition of approval would
read as follows:
"Applicant shall be required to engage in incremental reclamation if deemed practical by
DOGAMI and subject to DOGAMI's exclusive review and approval."
Air Quality (Site Plan Issue)
Latham appealed the County's application of the DEQ fugitive dust emission standards found at
OAR 340-208-0210(2), arguing that the County's conclusion that the applicant had not
demonstrated that the headwall could not be mined further without violating the fugitive dust
emission standard went beyond the requirement that the applicant take "reasonable precaution"
to avoid particulate matter from becoming airborne. Specifically, Latham argued that the
standard was not one that required a demonstration of success, but only that `'reasonable
precautions" were being employed. LUBA agreed and remanded the County's decision to
review this issue under the proper interpretation of the fugitive dust standard.
Latham Response:
Latham believes that the scope of the remand on this air quality issue is limited to addressing the
air quality issues as they relate to the headwall. The other aspects of applicant's compliance with
air quality regulations were resolved in the LUBA appeal. From the matrix prepared by staff,
this appears to be staff's position as well.
When the case was before the Board in 2009, the applicant did not have a complete opportunity
to address claims by the opponents that the headwall produced dust. Due to the lateness of the
hour and a somewhat confusing discussion of the hearing schedule, Applicant's counsel
OAR 632-030-0027(1)(c) allows a slope steeper than 1 '/2 to 1 provided such steeper slopes are consistent with the
approved subsequent beneficial use. It is hard to imagine that a vertical wall that was certified as being stable would
not be consistent with most any use, provided that there were adequate setbacks from the vertical face. The size of
the property would provide ample opportunity for setbacks.
10
misunderstood what its rebuttal rights were. Given that this is a de novo hearing, applicant can
introduce such information now to give a complete view of issues related to dust emissions and
the headwall area.
As stated in Pat McClain's testimony, the issue of dust from the headwall has been overblown.
Clearly, there were areas associated with the headwall that produced dust, principally the sloped
area at the southwest corner of the headwall (shown on May 20, 2008 Exhibit Map as being
mulched) and the bermed area atop the headwall. However, as stated in Mr. McClain's June 10,
2011 testimony and in the June 9, 2011 letter from applicant's geotechnical expert Andrew
Siemens, the if certain precautions are taken, the headwall itself is not susceptible to producing
dust because of the nature of the material when it is intact (as opposed to being excavated and
then stored in piles) and the fact that it readily forms a crust from exposure to wind and water. In
his testimony, Mr. Siemens suggests that the crust can be induced to form immediately by
wetting down the newly exposed material. This measure retains its effectiveness because the
vertical surfaces are not subject to mechanical or other disturbance that would break the crust
down. The efficacy of the crust as a dust control measure is evidenced by the fact that
excavation marks in the headwall have retained their shape for years, and in the case of some
headwalls in the area, decades. Use of water to control dust emissions is clearly viewed by the
DEQ fugitive dust standard as a "reasonable precaution," and therefore it is clear that this
method satisfies the approval standard.
With regard to control of dust emitting from the earthen berm atop the headwall. there are
reasonable precautions available to applicant to address those situations as well. Sloped areas
adjacent to the headwall can be mulched as was done in May 2008. Any earthen berm atop the
headwall can be hydro -seeded with mulch and/or seeded with native vegetation. At this time, the
berm atop the headwall appears to have become vegetated and no further stabilization appears
necessary. The applicant also has the option of reconfiguring the top of the headwall to eliminate
the berm, if desirable by cutting a shelf across the headwall and respositioning the berm, These
measures are consistent with and complementary to Latham's dust mitigation program that was
approved by the Board in its 2009 decision for those areas other than the headwall.
In light of these dust control measures, there is no reasonable argument for taking the position
that as a "reasonable precaution" further mining of the headwall must be avoided.
With regard to the other potentially applicable DEQ air quality standards, the visible air
contamination visibility standard cannot be applied to such a diffuse source as a headwall. By its
terms. that standard only applies to sources with a well defined "exhaust stack" or point of
release and therefore does not apply to the headwall. OAR 340-208-0110. (See LUBA Record,
p. 944.
With regard to particle fallout standard of OAR 340-208-450, DEQ enforces this provision
through its own Air Contaminant Discharge Permits, as a condition on the grant of such a permit.
The applicant has two such permits, one for the pumice crusher and one for the rock crusher.
(LUBA Record, p. 596 (pumice crusher), LUBA Record, p. 581 (rock crusher). As the statewide
agency responsible for implementing its program, the DEQ has the sole authority to determine
whether a violation exists and what the appropriate response should be. ,
11
Setbacks for Northeast and Southeast Processing Sites (Site Plan Issue and Conditional Use
Issue)
This issue relates to the approval of two additional sites for crushing mined material. The
relevant approval criterion is found at DCC 18.52.090(B). The applicant proposed three sites on
its site plan. In its 2009 decision, the Board approved the southwest site but denied the northeast
and southeast additional sites. The Board rejected those sites in findings made under the setback
provisions of the code. Applicant appealed the Board's denial of the additional sites on the basis
that the applicant met the required 1/4 -mile setbacks and that the County's reasons for denying
those sites were addressed to issues not reflected in the County's setback requirements. On
appeal. the County argued that the stated setbacks were a minimum and allowed for imposition
of setbacks greater than the County's minimums. LUBA agreed with the applicant and remanded
the Board's denial of the processing sites on the issue of compliance with the setback
requirements.
Latham Response to Remand:
LUBA's interpretation of the setback criteria for processing sites leaves the County no choice but
to find that the northeast and southeast processing sites comply with the applicable approval
criteria. It appears from the matrix of issues prepared by staff that staff agrees with the
applicant's contention. This leaves only the application of the remaining conditional use criteria
under DCC 18.52.140(A). (See below for application of the standards of that section.)
Northeast and Southeast Processing Sites - Compliance with Other Criteria (Conditional
Use Issue
This issue also relates to the Board's denial of the southeast and northeast crushing sites. The
relevant approval criteria are found at DCC 18.52.140(A)(1) and (2). In its 2009 decision. the
Board's found that all three processing sites met the first conditional use criterion for approval —
compliance with noise standards (see DCC 18.52.140(A)(1)). However, following up on its
apparent finding that the northeast and southeast sites did not meet the required setbacks, the
decision then failed to consider whether the approval standards of DCC 18.52.140(A)(2) had
been met. The applicant appealed that denial on the basis that the required approval standards
had not been applied in the Board's decision. LUBA agreed with the applicant's position and
remanded the decision.
Latham Response to Remand:
On remand, the Board must apply the standards of both DCC 18.52.140(A)(1) and (A)(2). For
the reasons set forth in Latham's previous submittals, as confirmed by the Board in its findings
on noise. the first prong is met. With regard to DCC 18.52.140(A)(1), Hoffmans attempted to
challenge application of the noise standards in their 7`h assignment of error. but these challenges
12
were not sustained. Accordingly, the Board has no choice but to follow its lead from its own
2009 decision and make findings demonstrating compliance with this criterion.°
With regard to DCC 18.52.140(A)(2), it is a virtual certainty that a crusher will remain on site for
longer than 60 days in an 18 -month period Accordingly, the processing equipment must be
screened from view of protected conflicting uses, to the extent required by DCC 18.52.110(B).
The processing equipment will consistent of screening and crushing equipment and a wash plant.
(See McClain testimony, p. 10.) Applicant proposes to employ berms of at least 15 feet in height
to screen the processing equipment. The surface of the berms would be stabilized by
hydroseeding with a mixture of mulch and native grass seed, such as rye grass (as was planted on
the top soil piles). The exact placement and height of the berms would not be determined until
the time the processing equipment is set up, except that the berm would be required to be located
between the processing equipment and the protected houses and the park nob.
With respect to the southwest processing site, the Board's 2009 approval allowed for the
processing equipment to be screened buy being sighted behind the 20 -foot tall tuff stockpile in
the center of the pit. This finding was not challenged on appeal. To the extent diminution of the
stock pile eliminates such visual screening, applicant would agree to a berm sufficient to screen
the crushing equipment from the protected houses and the park nob.
Dated this 10th day of June, 2011.
Bruce W. White
6 Using the rock crusher at the northeast crushing site requires that applicant either construct a 5' berm between the
processing site and the Hoffman #2 dwelling along the northern boundary or depress the crushing site by 5 feet.
(See April 15, 2008 noise report of Kerrie Standlee, LUBA Record, p. 920.) Applicant will agree to such a limitation
as a condition of approval. Applicant would agree to a condition of approval that any berm constructed to fulfill this
requirement would be hyro-seeded with a mixture of mulch and native grass seed, such as rye grass.
13
10'
1891
3380
COUCH
MARKET RDI 'Ii
`3a
3300
or'
-2
B {l 0
�ryv
4890 P NEHURST• ROAD,.
'889
'-'88
3
i
338/
0
• Gravel Pit
r(
10 /
•
,E31.1
/2-1,
9
Ceder; Pit x
36
Cinder--, r_`338/
Pit`. /�
TUMA40Z3„r821•
--_RESERVOIR •
C3a00%_�
V
97130"
121 ° 22'30"
• 3445
'631
ROAD_
Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey
Control by USGS and USC&GS
Topography by photogrammetric methods from aerial
photographs taken 1957 and 1959. Field checked 1-962
Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum
10,000 -foot grid based on Oregon coordinate system, south zone
1000 -metre Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks,
zone 10, shown In blue
F,ne red dashed lines Indicate selected fence lines
_toy" _:ected 1971
• -e/10:5 Plt
0
Gra,el •
PIIS' ,,/.
—11
•
)III Tumalo N`,
(2 (A M 318 2) o )
}
i;•
•__{ Sno�^i
VIABM"> 3374
////•
1 780 000 FEET P
1°10' •347 MILS
21 MILS
MN
19r/2'
(2 E. 20'
BEND 5 lv,l
2',
S
._._ . 1 -L. _-_ -
1000 0 1000 200J
•
' �I'nbit 1
— --
UTM GRID AND 1962 MAGNETIC NORT
DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
CONTOU
DOTTED LINES R
NATIONAL GEODI
48860n)4, N
4885
4884
883
4882
'881
If
3570
vAE3M _Tumalo
aces
Butte'
(lll
JSHVLIN
/ARK
6c'
I/
I
3534
'i,
-'i \Flwne
i
ti
••••••••-r,-9
YE -•r.
/
E3M 20
/. 3345
Mile
` 160
•
,Ta3MALO
E YA 8 w
FanhiY --
Jrl'
/ '
Waiver of
Remonstrance
(File #)
tC
C
O
Z
Condition 6 requires
Waiver to be signed
before issuance of
building permits.
(SMA -08-4)
v
}
v)
N
N
O
Q
2
Date of House
c
ui
rn
Post 1990 — house is
currently under
construction
1988 w/ major
addition to existing
house in 2002
Inside/Outside Inventoried Impact Area
Outside of impact area
Small portion of the property in the
southwest corner is in the impact area —
the majority of the home is outside the
impact area.
Less than 1/2 of the property (west half) is
in the impact area — existing home is
outside of the impact area; new home is
in the impact area.
About Y2 of the property is in the impact
area, including the home.
L_
Tax Lot
17-12-06-1000
17-12-06-1001
17-12-06-1002
17-12-06-1102
Owner
Massey
CI)
cL
•v
a)
Q
0
ca
E
l%
0q,0 Zl Ll dVW 335
;
0 �, F LO R°1°
Z'999
Q
,4411m
0o'o0Z
�1L
VD
0.4
0000Z
00
._r714IC
N
0
C>
0'
O TS
�►• =f;mgir
oO
0
0
Exhibit 1 to Table
0
0
N
E
0
E
cs)
0
0)
•
-1 -p -
'
E
Exhibit 2 to Table 1
Q
u)
a)
c
0
N
a)
c
.Q
E
O
0
ca
0
Q
11
ca
0
E
a7
c
g
0
(.)
(13t
V/
Exhibit 3 to Table 1
Testimony of Pat McClain
On Remand of Johnson Road Pit Site Plan — Site 303
June 10, 2011
I am making this testimony as a part owner of Latham Excavation, which is the applicant for site
plan approval and conditional use approval to allow for some modifications to the existing
pumice removal operation at the Johnson Road pit and to allow crushing at the site. Our
attorney will be providing legal argument to supplement this factual testimony.
I. Introduction
A. Nature of Our Business
I would first like to address the nature of Latham Excavation's business. We are a locally owned
excavation company. Prior to buying the mining site from Cascade Pumice, our business was
focused almost exclusively on excavating construction sites. Our acquisition of the Johnson
Road pit allowed us to diversify so that we could provide construction fill materials to our
customers and also provided us with a new market to supply pumice materials to pumice block
construction companies and to horticultural supply companies. Most of our pumice material is
sent out of the area to companies in the Willamette Valley or to the Seattle area. This
particular pumice material is a rare commodity and is highly valued.
Our company now employs 26 people full time. We have been affected by the economic
downturn just as everybody else connected with the real estate or construction industry has
been. However, the pumice supply portion of our business has been less affected and it has
helped us to ride out the economic downturn. The pumice mine represents an opportunity for
us to bring added revenue into the region for a product that originates here in Central Oregon.
Our supply of pumice is regarded as being one of the best. As our geotechnical expert Andrew
Siemens stated in an assessment of the resource for us soon after we bought the pit, the Bend
Pumice is an excellent resource that should be "guarded jealously." (See LUBA Record, p. 803.)
Like all businesses, our mining business is one that must be profitable to operate. Cascade
Pumice sold us the site in part because it was no longer profitable for them to operate the site.
The cost of diesel had gone up, so the cost of mining a material that lay deeply buried beneath
the earth became less profitable. In addition, their operations required that the pumice be
trucked off-site for processing (screening and crushing) at their industrial site in Deschutes
Junction. They had no developed market for the Tumalo Tuff that overlay the Bend Pumice and
no way to capitalize on the value of that resource, and they would have had to move the Tuff
pile back into the hole left by excavation. It was easier for them to sell out of the site than to
continue to operate it. Our ability to operate the site profitably at a time when diesel costs are
increasing requires that we have a short travel distance from excavation to processing
equipment for processing the pumice and that we be able to receive value for the Tumalo Tuff
that overlies the Bend Pumice instead of expending resources to move piles of that resource
1
R
• For the purposes of this mining application, to add a 12 -foot high berm for
approximately 200 feet along the eastern edge of the mining area to screen a portion of
the excavated area from view of protected residences across the river and a condition of
approval to retain existing vegetation on the eastern shoulder of the pit as it ascends
the slope to screen protected residences and park sites to the east. The berm would
allow for vehicle passage by being made up of two overlapping offset segments.
• To add to our menu of dust mitigation measures a requirement to apply water to the
headwall while it is excavated to form the crust that prevents wind erosion of the
headwall faces.
• To specify that the berms that would screen the crushing sites would be at least 15 feet
in height, with final positions and heights to be determined in the field upon
establishment of crushing sites. Berms to be hydro -seeded with a mix of mulch and
native grass, such as rye grass.
B. The Nature of the Mineral Materials
We are informed that one of the issues that LUBA remanded the County's approval on was the
issue of whether the 1990 ESEE covered excavation and removal from the site of the Tumalo
Tuff that overlies the Bend Pumice. The Bend Pumice was inventoried and the Tumalo Tuff was
not. It was the Bend Pumice that Cascade Pumice was after when it identified this site as a
mining site during the County's mineral and aggregate Goal 5 process in the late 1980s.
As we explained in our previous submittals, the Bend Pumice is overlain by the Tumalo Tuff.
The top elevation of the Bend Pumice at about 3,338 - 3,345 feet according to our surveyor.
The Tumalo Tuff lies above that in a band of about 120 feet deep below a basalt cap layer. (See
Siemens Stratigraphy, LUBA Record p. 822). The top elevation we are proposing to mine lies
about 15 vertical feet below that basalt cap layer at about elevation 3410, according to the site
plan map.
As our geotech Andy Siemens has described in previous submittals, the Tumalo Tuff and the
Bend Pumice originated from the same volcanic eruption, but the nature of the Tuff was that it
was part of the volcanic ash and it fell to earth on top of a layer of pumice that became known
as the Bend Pumice. (LUBA Record, p. 800.) This is consistent with DOGAMI's white paper on
the Bend Pumice. (LUBA Record, p. 796 and 3059.) As the DOGAMI white paper indicates,
there is no erosion on the top layer of the Bend Pumice, so it is clear that the two strata were
deposited in quick succession. (LUBA Record, p. 796, 3059.) From a visual inspection of the
two mineral units, it is clear that there are inclusions of the Pumice within the Tuff. (See
Exhibits 1AA, 1.1, 1K, and 1L.) Andy Siemens has indicated that these inclusions make up as
much as 30% of the total of the Tuff by weight. (See LUBA Record, p. 870.) We know there is a
3
I would also like to clarify why we have asked to take incidental aggregate from the site and the
need for a rock crusher. The site is overlain by a cap layer of basalt. A site visit to the mining
site shows that portions of that basalt have fallen into the area to be excavated and will
necessarily need to be excavated to get to the pumice below. (See Exhibit 1B.) In addition,
portions of the tuff are "welded" and not susceptible to crushing by our roll crusher. (See
Exhibit 1C, see also LUBA Record, p. 2708.)
C. Headwall
The existing headwall at the site was created by Cascade Pumice under their 1996 site plan.
Our permit boundaries are essentially the same as Cascade Pumice's. Therefore, whatever
headwall is created during the mining within this perimeter is a headwall that would be allowed
under the 1996 permit.
Our proposal is to mine the tuff and to leave a headwall of the tuff and the pumice. We are
allowed to leave the headwall by DOGAMI regulations so long as the headwall is viewed as
being stable. The preliminary analysis from our geo-tech indicates that the headwall will be
stable. (LUBA Record, p. 2342.) We are allowed to change our DOGAMI reclamation plan by
submitting a request for an amendment.
Under our site plan the headwall can be expanded vertically by about 20-30 feet (up to an
elevation of approximately 3410 feet) and horizontally by about 650 feet. It should be noted
that as the headwall is expanded toward the east, it curves toward the south, which when
combined with the eastern shoulder that will result from cutting back into the hillside, will
result in a portion of the headwall being shielded from the nob in the park and the adjacent
residences. (See Exhibit 1D.) The trees on the eastern shoulder would be retained as required,
to give some visual protection to the park and any protected residences to the east. Such a
requirement would apply only to the mining footprint that is the subject of this site plan permit.
If the pit were to be expanded beyond the existing permitted footprint in the future, the
continued presence of those trees should not be used to preclude a further expansion,
provided all applicable standards are met.
I would note that due to topography, there is nothing that can be done to shield some houses
to the north of the pit along Ridgewood Drive (see LUBA Record, p. 2992) and some houses to
the east behind the nob in Tumalo State Park from viewing the headwall. (See Exhibit 1E.) We
believe that it is situations such as this that the topography exception from the visual screening
requirements was meant for.
As we have noted previously, there are numerous instances of near vertical headwalls in the
Bend area involving the Tumalo Tuff. Across the river in Tumalo State Park itself, next to the
small nob and downslope from O.B. Riley Road, there is an old mining site with an exposed
headwall of Tuff and Pumice. (See Exhibit 1F.) On the uphill side of O.B. Riley Road from
Tumalo State Park, there are exposed slopes of Tumalo Tuff and Bend Pumice. (See Exhibits 1G,
5
Where we have had problems with wind picking up particulates from the headwall area in the
past has been in those areas at atop of the headwall where Cascade Pumice installed earthen
berms required by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which is the equivalent
of OSHA as it relates to mines, and in the sloped areas above and adjacent to the headwall area.
These tend to be made up of unconsolidated earth deposits that are more susceptible to wind
erosion than the hardened headwall areas. Pictures showing the earthen berm at the top of
the headwall and one of the adjacent sloped areas are attached as Exhibits 1M and 1P.
The relative lack of erosion from the headwall can be seen by reviewing the top of the layer of
exposed Bend Pumice. There is a layer of wind -deposited Tuff particulate matter on top of the
Bend Pumice layer and even after almost three years of inactivity at the pit it is relatively thin.
(See Exhibit 10.) That the headwall itself does not shed much can be shown by the limited pile
of debris at the toe of the slope, even after almost three years of inactivity at the pit. (See
Exhibit 1N.)
We believe that biggest step that can be done to cut down on dust coming from the headwall
area is to ensure that the bermed areas on top of the headwall are adequately vegetated
(which we believe they have become during the time that has ensued since our previous
hearings), and to either minimize the sloped areas at the top of the wall where loose material
may tend to lie and fall off the wall and/or to ensure that the those areas are adequately
mulched.
If these steps I have identified above are taken as well as the other steps identified in our dust
mitigation program, such as watering of pit travel areas and untreated or unvegetated
stockpiles and mulching of other exposed areas, and inclusion of tackifiers as needed, dust can
be adequately controlled at the pit. From previous DEQ testimony, we believe these are
viewed by DEQ as being reasonable precautions to prevent excavated surfaces from emitting
dust.
We know that when we initially took over the pit from Cascade Pumice we had issues with dust
control. Part of that was just from a learning curve that we experienced as new operators of
the pit. Unfortunately, due to his untimely death in December 2007, we weren't able to tap the
experience of Cascade Pumice Manager Dugan Pearsall as much as we would have liked in our
operation of the pit. We have learned by experience which areas needed treatment and which
areas do not. I would note that just before they left the site, Cascade Pumice re-contoured the
areas on the eastern portion of the property that had formerly been operated by Bend
Aggregate and Paving by filling in that area with the Tumalo Tuff. This exposed new areas of
Tuff to wind erosion and created dust issues that had not been present previously and that we
were able to rectify with our first application of the mulch product in April 2008.
Our previous testimony in the record indicates that we have an adequate supply of water and
ability to put water down to control dust on those areas most likely to emit dust. (LUBA
7
We have never received any complaints from Tumalo State Park or park users (other than
neighborhood opponents) about our operation of the pit. As noted in my previous testimony of
May 20, 2008, (see LUBA Record, p. 693) the day use and camping areas are shielded from the
view of the pit by a ridge that runs along the west side of the river (see LUBA Record, pp. 2164,
2165 and 2167) and intervening vegetation. I have attached some reviews of Tumalo State Park
from a travel website that indicates the primary complaint with Tumalo State Park appears to
be the noise from adjacent roadways, which obviously produce noise all around the clock. (See
Exhibit 3.) At least one of those comments was from a time period in which we were operating
the pit, but there is no mention of the pit.
Due to the topography of the area, there is no possibility of screening the site entirely from
surrounding properties. We understand there is no requirement that the site be entirely
screened from view where such screening is not possible. We can partially screen the pit floor
area from the views of the small nob in Tumalo State Park and nearby houses by providing a
vegetated berm across the eastern boundary of the pit. We would propose a berm of 12 feet in
height running across the eastern mining permit boundary for this site plan from the northeast
corner of the mining boundary approximately 200 feet south to merge into the beginning of the
eastern shoulder of the pit at about elevation 3320, vegetated consistent with the manner in
which we propose to vegetate the berms around the processing equipment. (See excerpt of
site plan at Exhibit 4.) The 12 -foot height was derived from the approximate height of the top
soil piles that were left by Cascade Pumice and that appear to provide some degree of
screening. As noted, existing vegetation on the vegetated slopes above the pit floor on the
eastern shoulder of the expanded headwall would be retained in this mining footprint. It
appears that such vegetation retention and the curvature of the wall to the south will shield the
nob of the park and nearby protected residences from exposure to portions of the headwall as
it is extended east. (See Exhibit 1D.)
Setbacks
We understand that one of the issues that LUBA identified that needed to be addressed was
the piles of top soil that fall within the 1/4 -mile setback. We didn't think that the setbacks
applied to such piles of material, given that they just sit there and are not worked. However,
we are prepared to address LUBA's determination that the two piles of topsoil that do not meet
the 1/4 -mile setbacks, one near the north property line that lies within the 1/4 -mile setback for the
Hoffman #1 residence and a series of piles that lie within the X -mile setback for the Todd
residence.
We are willing to remove the pile of top soil that we imported that lies within the 1/4 mile
setback from the Hoffman #1 house. This material can be incorporated into the 12 -foot high
earthen berm that we propose to construct along the eastern edge of the mining permit area.
That pile is identified in an excerpt from the Site Plan shown in Exhibit No. 4 and pictured in
Exhibit 1T.
9
We would propose to screen those sites from pre -1990 dwellings to the east by erecting
earthen berms between the processing equipment and the protected residences, as I outlined
in my 2009 testimony before the Board (LUBA Record, p. 433) or to use the existing tuff stock
pile for the southwestern processing site. As set forth in our earlier testimony, the processing
equipment consists of screening equipment, one of two crushers (depending on the material
needing to be crushed) and potentially a wash plant for producing horse arena sand. (See
April 15, 2008 testimony of Cougar Caverhill, LUBA Record, p. 660, 521, 522 (pumice screener
and crusher) and LUBA Record, p. 888 (impact crusher).) The tallest of this equipment stands
about 13 - 14 feet in height. We do not know the actual height needed to screen the
equipment completely from the elevated protected sources across the river because that is a
function of how close the berms would be to the equipment and how much higher the
protected conflicting uses are than the pit floor. Until we set up the northeast and the
southeast crushing sites and determine their layout in relation to the remainder of the mining
operation, we will not know how close we will be able to locate the screening berms to the
processing equipment. Without firm information on all these variables, we would propose to
include a berm of at least 15 feet in height with the final heights and positions to be
determined in the field. These berms would be temporary (the berms would be removed upon
completion of the use of a processing site) and would be covered with ground cover. In the
event the tuff pile that shields the southwestern processing site from view were to become so
reduced in size as to expose that equipment to view, we would erect a similar berm to shield
the processing equipment at that processing location as well.
For ground cover, we would propose to hydroseed the berms with a mulch and a seed mix of
drought -resistant, native grasses, such as rye grass consistent with DOGAMI's best
management reclamation practices. (See Chapter 7 of DOGAMI's Best Management Practices
for Reclaiming Surface Mines in Washington and Oregon.) (LUBA Record, p. 2169.) Given that
only native, drought -resistant plants would be involved that would require minimal watering,
we certainly have sufficient water to ensure the success of such plantings. That plantings of
native -grass ground cover can be successful at this site is shown by the fact that the top soil
piles have been successfully vegetated. (See Exhibit 1V.)
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Pat McClain
11
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 1A: Survey stakes showing eastern boundary of mining area.
Exhibit 'IAA: A band of the Tumalo Tuff showing inclusions of the Bend Pumice. The pumice
inclusions show up as the small darker orangish spots embedded in the tuff,
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 1 B: Chunks of basalt from the basalt cap rock that have fallen into the lower layers of
Tuff.
Exhibit 1C: Pieces of welded tuff.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 10: Natural vegetation on shoulder of eastern edge of mining area that will partially
screen the headwall area from protected houses to the east. Such vegetation will be retained.
The house in the background is the Massey house that lies outside of the %-mile impact area.
Exhibit 1E: The small "nob" area in Tumalo State Park as viewed from O.B. Riley Road.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 1 F: The headwall of Tuff and Pumice in Tumalo State Park, the remainder of an old
mining operation. Excavation marks are still visible in the tuff. This headwall has existed for as
long as I can remember, going back about 50 years and probably predates that considerably.
Exhibit 1G: An exposure of Tumalo Tuff on the uphill side of O.B. Riley Road, just above
Tumalo State Park.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 1H: Another exposure of Tumalo Tuff along O.B. Riley Road. The house above the cliff
is a post -1990 home and is not protected from visual impacts of the Johnson Road pit.
Exhibit 11: The Bend Pumice and the Tumalo Tuff in a road cut along O.B. Riley Road, just
above Tumalo State Park. The round pieces of material in the tuff layer are inclusions of
pumice.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 1J: A road cut of Tumalo Tuff above Tumalo Reservoir Road, about 1/z mile to the north.
Exhibit 1 K: Claw marks in the Tumalo Tuff at our pit left from excavating the tuff. The round
orangish shapes are inclusions of pumice that are embedded in the tuff.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Sas
• -
't
1
yi•
dik
•
-J
A
-
4
P:
•
F
•
r
4 L.I r 'w .
,I
!k/- ..' •
1
W .
Exhibit 1L: An example of the Tumalo Tuff from the O.B. Riley road cut, crusted over from
exposure to the elements. This also shows inclusions of the Bend Pumice.
Exhibit 1M: An earthen berm on top of the headwall at the Johnson Road pit. MSHA requires
that such berms be located atop the headwall. Vegetation has now taken hold on the berm.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 1N: The flat surface of the top of pumice layer in the eastern edge of the current mining
area showing how little deposition of Tuff material by wind has occurred over three years. The
printed version shows a more orange tint than is present in real life.
Exhibit 10: The headwall at the Johnson Road pit showing the Tumalo Tuff above the Bend
Pumice. The accumulation of material at the toe of the slope shows how little material has
fallen from the headwall and berm over the last three years.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 1 P: The southwest corner of the pit, where the biggest wind erosion problem in the
headwall area occurred. This area was successfully treated with mulch in May 2008 to prevent
wind erosion.
Exhibit 10: The ridge on the southern edge of the Hoffman property that blocks views from the
Hoffman residence of the mine and that shields other houses from the north from views of the
pit floor. The presence of the ridge would make it infeasible for us to supply screening along our
northern boundary.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 1 R: Views of the residences across the river from the pit. The houses on the right are
post -1990 houses and are not protected. The red house and the house next to it are pre -1990
houses.
Exhibit 1 S: A view across the Hoffman property showing the extension of the ridge across the
southern boundary of the property. The Hoffman #2 house, shown in the photo, is a post -1990
house, but is protected in any event by the intervening ridge.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 1T: A view of the Hoffman #1 house from Johnson Road showing how the house sits in
a hollow surrounded by vegetation.
Exhibit 1U: The top soil pile that lies within the '/4 -mile setback of the Hoffman residence. This
pile will be moved.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 1V: The topsoil pile that lies within the %-mile setback of the Todd residence. This
topsoil pile is proposed to remain where it is until mining requires that it be moved. The Klein
house appears to the immediate left of the pile and demonstrates that a berm of this
approximate height would screen portions of the pit floor from the "nob" in Tumalo State Park
and any surrounding protected residences.
Exhibit 1W: Vegetated piles of material left from aggregate mining in the 1970s and 1980s by
Bend Aggregate and Paving.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
Exhibit 1X: View east from location of the southwest processing site.
Exhibit 1Y: View east from approximate location of southeast processing site.
Exhibit 1- Photographs
•
Exhibit 1Z: View of location of northeast of processing location (at stake). Vegetated pile will be
removed when required by mining operations.
STATE OF OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES
Suite 965
800 N. E. Oregon Street #28
Portland, Oregon 97232
SPECIAL PAPER 27
An Economic Analysis of Construction Aggregate
Markets and the Results of a Long -Term
Forecasting Model for Oregon
By Robert M. Whelan
Mineral Economist
Oregon Department of Geology
and Mineral Industries
1995
74,37
GOVERNING BOARD STATE GEOLOGIST
John W. Stephens, Chair Portland Donald A. Hull
Jacqueline G. Haggerty -Foster Weston Mountain DEPUTY STATE GEOLOGIST
Ronald K. Culbertson Myrtle Creek John D. Beaulieu
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Special Papers, ISSN 0278-3703
Published in conformance with ORS 516.030
Notice
The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries is publishing this paper because
the information furthers the mission of the Department. To facilitate timely distribution, this report
has not been edited to our usual standards.
ii
Summary
This report contains the results of a major applied research project on aggregates. The work was
done by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). The main
objective of this research was to produce a iong-range forecast of aggregate consumption for
every county in Oregon. The project work also yielded new findings that are useful for anyone
studying aggregate -related issues in Oregon or elsewhere in North America.
Some of the major findings of this research project are:
• Per capita aggregate consumption varies greatly from place to place. It tends to be
much higher in rural areas than in cities.
• Increases in the number of households and personal incomes have a major
influence on aggregate consumption. In 1993, growth in households and incomes
accounted for about three out of every eight tons of aggregate used in Oregon.
• Over half of Oregon's aggregate consumption goes into projects that accommodate
motor vehicles. This includes roads, parking lots, driveways, and bridges.
• Most of the aggregate mines in Oregon are small. Half of the firms that operated
mines in 1993 produced fewer than 16,150 tons. The average mine yielded 83,159
tons
• Urban areas use less aggregate per mile of road than rural areas. One reason for
this difference is the higher proportion of residential streets in urban areas.
• High shipping costs isolate markets from outside competition. Communities that
block or prohibit new mines can inadvertently create regional monopolies.
• Between 2001 and 2050, Oregon's aggregate consumption will rise 0.53% per year
compared to a 1.01% growth rate in the state's population. Consumption will average
55.8 million tons a year. Public works and other government -supported projects will
account for 34.3% of this consumption. Almost 30% of total aggregate consumption
will go into roads. Other types of infrastructure will use 19%. Nonresidential
construction, which also includes farms, will account for 29% of the total. Residential
buildings will use 16%.
This report is written in a straightforward and nontechnical style so that readers who are
unfamiliar with the aggregate industry can readily use it. The report has three chapters. The first
is a general discussion of the factors that influence aggregate consumption. There is background
information on how and where aggregate is used. It concludes with an explanation ~of the
forecasting methods we developed.
The second chapter contains the forecast for the entire state. There is also a sensitivity analysis
that tells us what the forecast would look like if we assumed different rates of economic growth.
Forecasts for Oregon's 36 counties are shown in the last chapter. Every county forecast comes
from a large economic model containing extensive amounts of data. This information has been
condensed into two-page summaries for each county.
Much of the data and analytical work presented in this report is based on original research.
Information and data gathered from other sources are cited.
The quantities of aggregate in this report are expressed in short tons. Aggregate can also be
measured in volume terms. A typical cubic yard of aggregate in Oregon that has been mined,
processed, and loaded onto a truck weighs about 1.425 tons. Aggregate in the ground before
being mined weighs about two tons a cubic yard. These are averages. Actual densities can be
much higher or lower.
iii
Table of Contents
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF T.ABI,ES vi
TABLE OF FIGURES
CHAPTER ONE: THE ECONOMICS OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE MARKETS l
INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS AGGREGATE? I
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OTHER TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT? 1
How MUCH AGGREGATE IS PRODUCED. -AND USED IN OREGON? 4
W}{OPRODLCES AGGREGATE? 6
WHO USES AGGREGATE AND How MUCH DO THEY CONS['\1E?
How DOES NEW HOUSING AFFECT AGGREGATE CONSUMPTION') 10
How MUCH AGGREGATE IS USED ON PUBLICLY FUNDED PROJECTS') I I
IS PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION A GOOD W. -AY TO FORECAST DEMAND? 12
WHAT DRIVES AGGREGATE CONSUMPTION? 16
WHAT ARE THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM GROWTH AND BASE LEVEL USE? 16
Is THE IMPACT OF GROWTH THE SAME_ IN ALL COUNTIES? I8
Do URBAN COUNTIES USE MORE AGGREGATE ON THEIR ROADS? 18
How Is Ro.-AD MILEAGE D[STRIBLTED ['.S OREGON? 21
IS RECYCLING GOING TO REDUCE THE NEED FOR MINING? /
WHAT MATERIALS ARE RECYCLED?
CAN WE FIND WAYS TO REPLACE AGGREGATE? 23
HOW IMPORTANT ARE SHIPPING COSTS?
WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS A SHORT.AGF OF AGGREGATE" 7 7
How COMPETITIVE ARE AGGREGATE MARKETS? �7
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ENCOURAGE COMPETITIVE PRICING? 79
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO CONSERVE VIRGIN AGGREGATE RESOURCES? 30
How DOES THE FORECASTING MODEL WORK? 3 I
WHAT ISA LONG-TERM MODEL? 34
WH7" DID You CHOOSE A LONG-TERM MODEL FOR THIS RESEARCH? 34
Do THE MODELS UNDERSTATE PEAKS AND TROUGHS? 35
WHAT FURTHER RESEARCH IS NEEDED? 37
CHAPTER TWO: FORECAST OF AGGREGATE CONSUMPTION IN OREGON .. ... 38
INTRODUCTION 38
FORECAST SUMMARY 38
CONSUMPTION FORECAST BY END USE SUBCATEGORIES 4 I
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS BASED UPON GROWTH 45
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS BASED UPON INCOME 46
FORECAST OF PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION 47
CHAPTER THREE: INDIVIDUAL COUNTY FORECASTS 48
INTRODUCTION 48
BAKER COUNTY 52
BENTON COUNTY 54
CLACK,-AMAS COUNTY 56
CLATSOP COUNTY" 58
COLUMBIA COUNTY 60
Coos COUNTY 62
CROOK COUNTY 64
IV
CURRY COUNTY 66
DESCHUTES COUNTY 68
DOUGLAS COUNTY 70
GILLLAM COLNTY 72
GRANT COUNTY 74
HARNEY COUNTY 76
HOOD RIVER COUNTY 78
JACKSON COLNTY 80
JEFFERSON COUNTY 82
JOSEPHINE COUNTY 84
KLAMATH COUNTY 86
LAKE COLNTY 88
LANE COUNTY 90
LINCOLN COLNTY 92
LINN COUNTY 94
MALHEUR COUNTY 96
MARION COUNTY 98
MORROW COUNTY 100
MULTNOMAI1 COUNTY 102
POLK COUNTY 104
SHERNLAN COUNTY 106
TILLAMOOK COLNTY 108
UMATILLA COUNTY 110
UNION COUNTY 112
WALLOWA COUNTY 114
WASCO COUNTY 116
WASHINGTON COUNTY 118
WHEELER COUNTY 120
YAmii ILL COUNTY 122
The most important benefit is reduced labor cost. More expensive materials will be used if they
eliminate worker time on the job. The cost of the displaced aggregate is often an insignificant
factor in the substitution.
For example, while aggregate may be 10% to 20% of the delivered price of concrete, most of the
cost of using it is in the labor needed to form the concrete. In the end, aggregate is only a minor
part of the total cost.
For some applications in buildings, concrete competes directly with steel. If an architect chooses
steel over concrete, the amount of aggregate needed to construct a building is reduced. Although
the price of aggregate may not have had any impact on the decision, it gets substituted.
Suppliers of building materials are always introducing new products. Some of these lessen or
even eliminate uses for aggregate. For instance, innovations in glass have led to losses in
aggregate consumption for exterior walls. High-strength concrete has replaced regular concrete
in some applications because of its desirable engineering characteristics. Projects made with
high-strength concrete use less aggregate.
A few new technologies and products directly target aggregate substitution as a major reason for
their development. Lime -treated base, for example, is growing in popularity especially in areas
where crushed rock is expensive. In this method, lime, sand, clay, and native soil are mixed
together and compacted. Asphalt or concrete pavement is placed on top. No base rock is used.
The method works well, but technical problems limit its use to special situations.
Geotextile fabric is a common alternative to base rock in road construction. A geotextile fabric
allows water to drain into soil while keeping crushed rock from sinking into the ground. It
effectively reduces the amount of crushed rock needed.
Some substitutes do not replace aggregate but simply extend its useful life. New plastic -based
chemicals are being used on gravel roads and in asphalt pavements. These improve durability
and reduce the amount of aggregate needed for maintenance and repairs. Durability can also be
enhanced by use of thicker layers of asphalt pavement or even concrete in place of asphalt.
The construction industry is innovative. The materials and methods used today are quite
different from those used just two generations ago. Lowering labor costs is the main driver of this
change. Substitution of aggregates is usually an unintended consequence.
Innovation will cut into future consumption, but this will occur at a very slow pace. Aggregate is
simply inexpensive relative to its benefits. For many of its uses aggregate does not face serious
competitive challenges.
How Important Are Shipping Costs?
In 1993, aggregate sold for an average mine -gate price of $4.39 a ton in Oregon. This figure
comes from our mining industry census. The price does not include shipping costs. We estimate,
however, that the average delivery charge for aggregate shipped by truck was $1,62 a ton. The
total delivered price is $6.01 a ton.
We estimated the shipping cost because the size, complexity, and lack of readily accessible data
made direct data collection impractical. There are 1,074 intrastate sand and gravel carriers alone
in Oregon.20 Several thousand crushed rock, captive, interstate, and other types of truckers also
ship aggregate. Very few can calculate their average delivery distances and charges. We had to
rely instead on informed opinions about normal delivery conditions in Oregon.
2° From a computer printout of sand and gravel carvers by zones supplied by Arnie Chinn of the Oregon
Public Utility Commission.
24
We called several independent truckers and mines and asked them what they charged for
loading, unloading, and hauling aggregate. We were told that a typical one-way shipment was 10
miles. Respondents said that their charges depend on the driving time, the size of shipment, and
the type of truck.
Our $1.62 estimate is based on an average truck load of 20 tons. We assume that the typical
truck travels 35 miles per hour over its route. At 10 miles each way, a round trip takes over 34
minutes. Loading adds five minutes to each trip. Unloading takes another four minutes. The total
round trip time is just over 43 minutes. From our informal survey, we estimated that the average
truck costs $45 an hour. That includes fuel, labor, and maintenance. A single round trip,
therefore, costs $32.46. Dividing that by 20 tons gives us a shipping charge of $1.62 a ton. About
34 cents of that are the costs of loading and unloading.
Trucking costs vary considerably, depending on circumstances. Truck capacity, for instance, has
a big influence on delivery costs. Truck capacities range anywhere from one to over 30 tons. A
market study of hauling rates for sand and gravel in the Puget Sound region of Washington state
shows how important truck capacity is to delivery cost.' According to the study, in 1990 shipping
a ton of sand in a truck carrying 15 tons cost approximately twice as much as in a truck hauling
35 tons. Figure 1.2 illustrates the relationship between distance, cost per ton, and truck capacity.
Cost ($ Per Ton)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1 .00
0.00
u) - a)
Figure 1.2
Contract Trucking Costs For Hauling Sand
and Gravel as a Function of Distance in the
Puget Lowland During 1990
Li) N— 0) c'') U) r rn
N N N N C I
One -Way Haul Distance (Miles)
15 Ton Truck
— 25 Ton Truck
35 Ton Truck
Travel time directly affects shipping costs. Traffic hurts the productivity of trucks. In our estimate,
if we assume that congestion slows trucks to 30 miles per hour, the shipping cost estimate goes
up to $1.84 a ton. Road congestion is one reason why shipping costs are higher in urban areas.
Distance affects trucking costs. If we increase the distance in our e3timate between a mine and
its customer to 321/4. miles, shipping costs go up to $4.39 a ton. That is double the 1993 mine
price of the aggregate. For every extra mile between a mine and a consumer, our estimate of
trucking costs rises by 12.9 cents a ton. Actual costs will vary depending on local conditions.
2 White, W.W., III; Stebbins, Scott; Hillman, and Thomas, 1990, Puget Sound Region Sand and Gravel
A'iarket Study: U.S. Bureau of Mines Report BIA 64-1II, 1 v.
25
—{
i--1
—'
—1
''r
Li) N— 0) c'') U) r rn
N N N N C I
One -Way Haul Distance (Miles)
15 Ton Truck
— 25 Ton Truck
35 Ton Truck
Travel time directly affects shipping costs. Traffic hurts the productivity of trucks. In our estimate,
if we assume that congestion slows trucks to 30 miles per hour, the shipping cost estimate goes
up to $1.84 a ton. Road congestion is one reason why shipping costs are higher in urban areas.
Distance affects trucking costs. If we increase the distance in our e3timate between a mine and
its customer to 321/4. miles, shipping costs go up to $4.39 a ton. That is double the 1993 mine
price of the aggregate. For every extra mile between a mine and a consumer, our estimate of
trucking costs rises by 12.9 cents a ton. Actual costs will vary depending on local conditions.
2 White, W.W., III; Stebbins, Scott; Hillman, and Thomas, 1990, Puget Sound Region Sand and Gravel
A'iarket Study: U.S. Bureau of Mines Report BIA 64-1II, 1 v.
25
Shipping costs have a dramatic effect on competitiveness. For instance, consider the case of
two mines competing to supply crushed rock to a construction project. If one of the mines is ten
miles farther away from the project, it will very likely lose out to its competitor, because the
shipping charges would add $1.29 per ton to the delivered price.
There are exceptions. Some mines can compete well beyond their local markets. They can do
this if they produce a highly desirable grade of aggregate, have unusually low mining costs, or
have access to low-cost shipping. Mines on interstate highways, for example, can sometime
afford to haul aggregates for long distances because their trucks travel at highway speeds. All of
these, however, are exceptions.
According to our census, over 92% of Oregon's aggregate production in 1993 was delivered by
trucks. We estimate that mines originated 2,244,843 truck loads in 1993. We believe there were
another 204,000 loads coming from out-of-state mines and recycled -material sources.
Our estimate puts the cost of trucking at 16.2 cents a ton mile. This includes the expense of
loading and unloading. A ton mile is the cost of shipping a ton of aggregate one mile. While
trucking is expensive. it has one major competitive advantage: it is flexible. Trucks can deliver
between any two points on short notice They can also economically ship small quantities.
Barges haul 5% of the aggregate coming from Oregon's mines. Most of the traffic is on the
Willamette River, where calm waters allow for simple deck barges to make local deliveries. Even
though barges are suitable for long-distance shipping, only one is currently doing so. On the
Columbia, there is one barge making long-distance deliveries between Boardman and Portland.
Depending on the design, barges carry anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 tons of aggregate. The
cost, including unloading, runs between one and two cents a ton mile. While inexpensive to
operate, barge systems for aggregate often require a very large investment in vessels and port
facilities. On the Columbia River, for instance, you need special high -walled barges to protect
against the high winds and swells.
Railroads shipped 2% of Oregon's aggregate in 1993. Two mines accounted for most of the
traffic. One moved rock from a mine in an isolated area of Washington County to a city near
Portland. The other mine shipped high-quality railroad ballast from Baker County.
A single rail car holds 100 tons of aggregate. Loading and unloading costs about 75 cents a ton.
Shipping costs are negotiable and vary with distance. A typical rate would be around 3.5 cents a
ton mile.2c
Like barges, railroads are handicapped by their inflexibility. Rarely are they adjacent to both
mines and construction sites. A substantial investment in equipment is normally required.
Aggregate usually has to be transferred at some point onto trucks. Anytime a ton of aggregate is
transferred, about 34 cents a ton is added to its final delivered price.
Shipping by ocean freighter is another way of delivering aggregate, although it is not presently
done in Oregon. Using ocean freighters is feasible because of back -haul pricing. Ships are often
empty when they come into ports to pick up loads. Knowing they will make a profit on those
loads, the ships can offer low rates if they can find anything they might deliver into the port.
These low-cost arrangements are called back -haul rates. Currently, empty ships come into
Portland to pick up soda ash, potash, and other mineral commodities. The port has facilities that
can be modified to handle aggregate imports.23
22 From a phone conversation with Ed Immcl, ODOT State Railroad Planner.
23 From conversations with the Port of Portland.
26
What Happens if There is a Shortage of Aggregate?
Local aggregate shortages occur in Oregon from time to time. Usually, they are caused by one or
two large construction projects that overload local mining capacity. Mines can sometimes
increase their capacity by adding equipment, but this takes considerable time and money. For
the most part, mine capacity is fixed and sudden increase in demand can create local shortages.
One way of dealing with such a shortage is to bring in supplies from neighboring markets. Buyers
bid up the prices of locally produced aggregate. This makes it practical to ship aggregate in from
other markets. To cover the costs of trucking in aggregate another 15 miles, local prices would
have to increase about $1.93 a ton. If these costs are all passed down to consumers, the
average household would see its cost of living increase by $87.67 a year. -4
Consumers can delay or change their construction plans because of shortages. Few consumers
will react in those ways, however, because aggregate is usually a small part of the total cost of
construction. When it does occur, it is usually on projects such as roads and parking lots where
aggregate usage is very high.
Sometimes, local shortages force contractors to use grades of aggregate they would normally
avoid. Projects made with poor -quality aggregate often cost more to build and lack durability. A
road made from an inferior grade of crushed rock, for instance, will deteriorate quickly and
require more maintenance. Ultimately, more aggregate will be used in the long run.
When faced with persistent shortages of local aggregate, builders will pay higher prices for their
aggregate and make changes in the way they do construction. This will result in higher
construction costs. Some of these costs will be hidden in the forms of higher rents, retail prices,
and taxes. Overall, the community's economic competitiveness will suffer. In addition, with
plenty of aggregate coming in from other markets, there will be more truck traffic and road
congestion in the community.
How Competitive Are Aggregate Markets?
Competition between aggregate producers is often quite fierce. In most markets around Oregon,
competition effectively keeps prices in line with production costs. Mines earn fair rates of return,
while consumers pay the lowest sustainable prices for aggregates. That is how competitive
markets work, but not all aggregate markets are like that.
As noted before, high shipping costs isolate markets and limit competition to local producers.
Fortunately, you do not need many producers to have a competitive market. Two or three
significant producers (assuming they do not collude) are enough to promote competitive pricing.
Competitive pricing is important. It assures that consumers pay prices that reflect production
costs, business risks, and fair rates of return. At times when demand is weak, the cost of
producing an extra ton of aggregate is low, because there is plenty of extra mining capacity and
labor around. Prices mirror this condition and fall. When demand is high, both labor and capacity
are running full -out. The cost of supplying an extra ton rises and paces go up. In competitive
markets, therefore, prices move up and down with demand. Consumers, over the long run,
benefit by getting the most for their money. The economic term for this is efficient pricing.
Problems arise when a community has only one mine or if the largest producer has an
overwhelming share of the market. In some, but not all, cases where this occurs, the largest
producer exercises market dominance.
' Total aggregate consumption in 1993 was 53,273,017 tons, and there were 1,171,966 households in
Oregon. Dividing those two gives us an average consumption of 45.46 tons per household. Using the
trucking cost estimates from the "Shipping Costs" section of this report, the incremental costs of trucking
a ton of aggregate 15 miles is just under $193 a ton. Multiplying that by the tons consumed per household
gives us a total of $87.67.
27
A producer takes advantage of market dominance by unilaterally raising prices to levels that are
well above normal. In addition, such a producer can make these high prices stick regardless of
how much demand there is for aggregate. Other local producers, if there are any, are too small
to do anything about it. Meanwhile, mines in neighboring markets are far enough away so that
high shipping costs keep them from bringing in aggregate. The result is a monopolistic market
structure.
Three conditions foster monopolistic structures. First, one producer must have a large share of
the market. Second, the product must be hard to substitute. Finally, the dominant producer has
to be shielded from new competitors.-
Monopolistic market structures are not necessarily bad. It depends on how the dominant
producer is shielded from competition. Some markets are too small to support more than one
producer. Others, because of geologic conditions, have just one good aggregate mining site.
Wherever these conditions exist, in practical terms, there is room for only one producer. What
results is called a natural monopoly.
In a natural monopoly, a community usually pays higher prices for aggregate compared to larger
competitive markets. However, if the community breaks up its natural monopoly, it will likely be
worse off. It would replace one mine with several smaller and less efficient mines. With higher
production costs, the smaller mines could end up charging more for their aggregate than the
natural monopolist.
Monopolistic market structures can be damaging if the dominant producer is protected by an
artificial barrier to entry. A barrier to entry is anything that keeps new competitors out of a
market. Unlike natural barriers such as small market size and unfavorable geology, artificial
barriers have little to do with the business merits of operating a mine. Artificial barriers keep
competent and capable producers from establishing themselves in communities where resources
and demand are sufficient to support new mines. Typically, the barrier is political.
If a dominant producer sets unreasonably high prices, competitors should be attracted to the
area. Sometimes, however, communities shield dominant producers from this threat by making it
nearly impossible for competitors to establish new mines.
Siting a new mine is an expensive, difficult, and uncertain process. Political systems can protect
communities from careless or poorly planned mining operations. Such systems, however, can be
used to block competent new competitors from entering the market. By being too restrictive,
communities create situations, often unintentionally, that let dominant producers charge
excessive prices. In more extreme cases, dominant producers will actively engage in predatory
exclusionary tactics that can even lead to the corruption and misuse of political institutions.`
If protected by an artificial barrier, a dominant producer can charge prices that are substantially
higher than those that would exist under free competition. This type of monopolistic market
structure is bad for a community. The excess profit earned by the dominant producer comes at
the expense of consumers. The local economy operates less efficiently. Construction costs are
higher than they should be. This, in turn, hurts the local business climate and makes housing less
affordable. Higher aggregate prices affect government budgets for schools, roads, irrigation
districts, and other public construction projects. Total employment suffers.
Another characteristic of dominant producers is their tendency to maintain excess capacity. They
can control either prices or quantities in local markets, but not both. Typically, they will choose to
set prices artificially high. They do this by restricting supply. The producers make more money
by operating at a lower level of capacity than they would under competitive conditions. Having
extra capacity also allows them to argue that new mines are unnecessary in the community
because there is plenty of available capacity for growth.
75 Chamberlin, E.H., 1962, 7heory orAIonopolistic Competition, 8th ed.
'b Scherer, F.M., and Ross, David, 1990, Industrial.tlarket Structure and Economic Performance.
28
There are no simple rules for identifying a monopolistic market structure. The most visible signs
show up in prices and market shares. Prices in these markets generally do not fluctuate with
changes in demand. They also are unusually high compared to neighboring markets, In all
cases, dominant producers have large market shares.
A producer may get high prices for reasons that have nothing to do with unfair competition. For
instance, a mine may sell a highly desirable and hard -to -find variety of aggregate. The most
common reason for high prices, however, is that they are just a reflection of high operating costs.
Usually this is due to adverse geologicai conditions. Many aggregate deposits in Oregon, for
example, are rich in clay. The clay has to be removed during processing because it is a harmful
constituent to the aggregate. Removing clay is an expensive step. High costs can also exist in
small markets because mines do not have the benefits of large-scale production.
What Can be Done to Encourage Competitive Pricing?
Competitive pricing has both economic and social benefits. Ensuring it can be difficult, however.
The best way to encourage competitive pricing is to have several significant producers. This is
easier said than done, and in some markets it may be impossible. Yet, there is an alternative
way to achieve competitive pricing, even if there is only one producer in a community.
A dominant producer who has no fear of attracting new competitors in her or his own market can
raise prices up to a level called the limit price. This price is just below what it would cost
consumers to buy aggregate from another market and have it shipped in. The limit price places
an upper boundary to what a dominant producer can charge. Still, it leaves the community
paying a large premium for its aggregate. if the nearest competitive market is 15 miles away, for
instance, a dominant producer could charge a premium of up to $1.93 per ton.27
Competitive pricing is least likely in markets where the geology limits a community to one mining
site. In this type of natural monopoly a producer cannot be threatened by new competitors
because the area has no other comparable mining sites. The producer can use limit pricing.
If the community has ways to reduce shipping costs, it can lower the limit price. This may be
done by allowing larger trucks on the roads or, if possible, by promoting rail or barge shipments.
The community can also strongly advocate recycling. None of these options are particularly
strong and they are applicable to few communities.
Where natural monopolies are caused by small market size, communities have more leverage.
They can pressure their producers by remaining open to the siting of new mines by outside
competitors. Having a new competitor enter a small market with natural monopoly would be an
extremely unfavorable event for an established producer. For that reason, a monopolist would
likely keep prices in line with competitive markets to avoid attracting unwanted competition.
In markets where there are no natural monopolies, communities usually have at least two
significant and separately owned aggregate mines. We also see markets with just one dominant
producer. These producers may have become dominant because they were more efficient than
any of their competition. In some cases, they may have bought out competitors.
Communities with dominant producers and no natural monopolies are best served if they remain
open to siting new mines by other producers. If the community does not do this, the dominant
producer could raise prices far above competitive levels without the risk of attracting
competition.
Policies encouraging competition do not have to lead to the development of new mines. They
merely have to create a credible threat of new capacity that the dominant producer cannot
control or block. Dominant producers will set prices close to competitive levels if the risk of new
competition is great. Otherwise, they can set higher prices.
S1.93 is the incremental cost of trucking aggregate an additional 15 miles. This cost is based on the
assumptions outlined in the "Shipping Costs" section of this report.
29
Source: http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g51766-d1576336-r77309205-
Tumalo State Park -Bend Oregon.html#REVIEWS
Date Printed: June 7, 2011
Tumalo State Park: Traveler Reviews
PlanetBub...
Northwest
4 reviews
`` 1 helpful vote
"Great campground, but a noisy highway on both sides of the park."
Reviewed August 29, 2010
Hey. We often like to camp in state campgrounds because my honey must use a breathing
machine at night. The park has many fine points. It's clean, the robins. blue jays (more of a black
blue). tiny tweets, and skittish chipmunks. It used to be that all the state parks where out in the
countryside, but now they are more often in the city. This campground vas wedged between to
noisy highways. We had one of the disabled ones because we were way late in finding a state
park. We have a disabled sticker on our car. However I wish they would have two in the tent
camp place as we don't need all that RV space to park. They need a bit more greenery or plants
separating the campsites. The toilets were nice. The solar showers were great. hot. even the ones
they had posted as being a bit cooler. Next to the solar showers there is a dish washing station
that could also be used for a shaving station. One day I took my shower about loam and there
was still hot water. The park would be great for big family's. The park rangers and hosts were
very nice and helpful. Our lire pit was conveniently placed. Across the street is the day area. In
the state park system once you pay for a camping pass it's also good in all the day areas. The
same with a day arca pass. There were several nice swimming holes. slow moving for the kids.
Grass to lay your towel on (we took several nice naps in this spot). A large grassy tree shade
area. Lots of picnic tables and a great small hike along the river. It was a 100% one day and the
river is just this side of freezing. On another day it was down to the late 30's one night, and we
decided that we may need more covers or a better sleeping hag. There were also yurts which
looked nice. The walk and bike spot looked like most people had a car or motorcycle, and one
even had a trailer. Most of the people in our area had motor homes or other things that are towed
to sleep in, and several tents. I'd go here again. We also visited Tumalo Falls and a very cool
place where a person make a lot of stuff out of rocks that were cleared from his farming. Low
cost donation and laid back people also make it nice. It's on the old 97 almost to Redmond if
your coming from Bend. The moon was full which made it all the more fun to sit around the
campfire at night. Past Bend going south is a road that goes out to the national forest. It has all
sorts of swimming, boating and other water features. The picture of this camping space shows a
different place because there are no rapids here. PlanetBubblesUniverse
Was this review helpful? Yes
Source: http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g51766-41576336-r77309205-
Tumalo State Park -Bend Oregon.html#REVIEWS
Date Printed: June 7, 2011
Ask PlanetBubbles about Tumalo State Park
This review is the subjective opinion of a TripAdvisor member and not of TripAdvisor LLC. Report
problem with review
neverstop...
Vancouver, Washington
58 reviews
`- 199 helpful votes
"Close to Bend and convenient"
Reviewed November 2, 2009
1
person found this review helpful
If you want to camp near Bend and have showers. yurts. and hookups. this is the place for you.
We stayed in a yurt there for a week last June and we had a great time seeing some of the sights
and hiking some of the trails near Bend. The park is located by the Deschutes River and there are
hiking trails on both sides of the river both up and downstream from the park. although none go
on for a real great distance.
Some of our destinations during that week included Smith Rock State Park (see my separate
review). Cove Palisades State Park, Shevlin Park. the Upper Deschutes River Trail. and Boyd
Cave. a do-it-yourself cave on China Hat Road southeast of Bend. One of the more unusual
destinations was Peterson Rock Garden, which is just a few miles away. There. a retired man
built all kinds of cool things out of colored rocks all over his yard. It must be seen to be believed.
Tumalo State Park probably gets a little hot during the summer and it may be better to camp at a
higher elevation at that time of year. For the shoulder seasons. however, it can't be beat. The
main drawback to Tumalo SP is traffic noise from (he nearby roads. which can get pretty loud
2
Source: http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g51766-d1576336-r77309205-
Tumalo State Park -Bend Oregon.html#REVIEWS
Date Printed: June 7, 2011
when motorcycles' go by. if you want cooler and quieter. try La Pine State Park. about 45 min.
south.
During our June stay at Tumalo, it rained back in Portland/Vancouver, but we got almost none at
the park, so you do have a better chance of staying dry there. If you are there on Sunday and
would like to attend church, Tumalo Community Church is a great place to attend. with very
friendly people. It's located in the nearby town of Tumalo.
3
iffeleiNALVANI
Broken Top Homes for Sale, Real Estate Agent, Realtor
Page 1 of 2
MARTHA HENDRICK REALTY
Broken Top
Whai's
Happening Around
Sand Of egon?
MarihaK naw c r arm
Crrk Her. for
Bend Real Esrare
and Cunmunify
Follow Us On:
—
Contact Us
Martha@ Hendrick.com
S4I.8I5.8300
Broken Top Homes for Sale
For people looking to live in a beautiful community with active
residents, there is Broken Top Club. This golf community encourages
neighbors to get out and stay active in their neighborhood and in the
Bend community. As one of the area's most reputable golf communities
in Central Oregon, Broken Top Club may be the home you have always
dreamed of for you and your family.
Broken Top Club features an award-winning golf course designed by
Tom Weiskopf and Jay Morrish. Golfers at every skill level will
appreciate the meticulous course no matter how many strokes it takes to get from the tee to the green. Designed to
provide a fair but challenging round, players can enjoy a relaxed game with friends or invite a competitive neighbor
onto the course for a friendly one-on-one. Broken Top Club also offers an extensive practice facility for golfers to hone
their skiffs that includes two practice bunkers, a chipping area, and plenty of wed -defined targets at various distances
on the range. An18-hole putting course, mowed and rolled to exact course specifications, allows players to perfect
their short game, while PGA professionals on staff for lessons and clinics. The Broken Top clubhouse has a pro shop and
recreational facilities for the whole family.
Residents of Broken Top Club take pride in being involved in their
community and gather to participate in various activities. Whether it is
fly fishing on the community's two -acre lake, or grabbing a quick bite
to eat at the restaurant, there is much to do at Broken Top Club. Two
swimming pools and a playground entertain neighborhood children, and
it is not uncommon to see a group of people on their way to bike, hike
and ski. Youth golf and tennis lessons are also available. Many more
activities can be found in Bend and Central Oregon.
Broken Top Club offers a diverse array of single family homes and
townhomes. Residents enjoy panoramic views of the surrounding
wilderness without leaving behind the convenience of living near Bend.
Whether you are looking to raise a family or retire, Broken Top Club welcomes you new residents with open arms.
Once you call this charming community home, don't be surprised to receive an invitation to meet on the first tee at
early tight.
For more information about Broken Top, visit www,BrokenToo,0m.
Looking for homes for sale in Broken Top?
Find Broken Top homes for sale by searching the local listings database
for access to listings in Broken Top and other golf course communities.
Whether you want to buy or sell real estate in Bend, you can browse
through properties or find a wide variety of real estate resources
available on this website.
Broken Top Real Estate Broker
If you are looking for a REALTOR® for Broken Top, choose Martha Hendrick. As your Broken Top real estate broker,
Martha Hendrick can assist you with all of your home buying and selling needs. She can provide you with access to the
local listings database and offer her experience and knowledge to make the home buying or selling process easier for
you and your family Contact Martha Hend ,tck today to get your home search started!
Home Property Search Free Email Updates Featured Listings Bend The Bend lifestyle Photo Gallery West Side Communities Coif Communities Hew
Homes L4rxury Hames Buyer B nni,rces Seller Resources Area Link,. Meet Martha Contact Me
Martha Hendrick
Principal Broker, CRS, ABR
Licensed faa the State of Oregon
Martha Hendrick Realty
,.P I t+',v Havre tt.
!.,nd, OR 97751
Dir _t: 541.815,5.100
r.
Email: rn 3rtha r .0
a..r1111ss 1MMI
nrssw.OMR
Real Estate Website Desien rs
http://hendrick.com/broken top 6/9/2011
SIEMENS & ASSOCIATES
Latham Excavation, Inc.
84 SE 5`s Street #100
Bend, Oregon 97702
Attention: Cougar Caverhill, Pat McClain
Project:
Subject:
Dear Cougar and Pat,
Johnson Road Pit, Site 303
Tumalo, Oregon
June 7, 2011
Project No. 111020
Geotechnical Reconnaissance: Headwall Fugitive Dust Potential
We understand that concerns have been raised about fugitive dust generated from various sources at Johnson
Road Pit. One of these sources is reported to be the steep cut exposure of Tumalo Tuff and Bend Pumice
known as the headwall.
We have recently reviewed the condition and conclude that the headwall is a very unlikely source of fugitive
dust and would not benefit from mitigation or treatment. We are of this opinion for several reasons:
1. These exposures were created many years ago and since that time, the surface has developed a
"work hardened" condition. That is, fine grained particles that were loosened at the time of
excavation have long since been removed by wind, water and time. Initially, the freshly exposed
surface offers a limited dust potential; however, owing to the cemented nature of the formation
(caused by heat and pressure as it was formed), the undisturbed materials naturally resist wind
erosion once the loose surface particles are removed. After that, there is no need for continued dust
abatement measures.
2. The headwall exposure comprises a fairly small part of the site's surface area and since it stands
vertical, the surface remains undisturbed.
3. Similar headwall cuts remnant from past pumice mining and excavation are present in Central
Oregon and we are not aware of similar dust concerns even though at least one of these cuts (along
the 8`1' Fairway at Broken Top) is situated in a residential neighborhood. Other, similar exposure
Siemens & Associates siemens@bendcable.com
office: 541-385-6500 19134 River Woods Drive, 97702
Bend, Oregon
fax: 503-296-2271
Johnson Road Pit: Headwall Fugitive Dust Potential Project Number 1 1 1020
Tumalo, Oregon
Siemens & Associates
include cuts along O.B. Riley Road (Tumalo Market Road), Bailey Road, Shevlin Park Road, Cinder
Butte Road and areas west of Summit High School.
The following photograph shows the original, vertical excavation marks through the Tumalo Tuff and
the Bend Pumice. After many years of exposure, these marks remain; they have not been eroded away by
the forces of wind. In our view, this is a testament to the resistive nature of the formations and evidence
that the materials of the headwall are not readily reworked to become fugitive dust.
Dust Mitigation
Dust potential at new headwall or similar exposure of the Tumalo Tuff and Bend Pumice can easily
be managed to a stable condition simply by spraying water on the fresh surface to remove loose
particles shortly after exposure. A similar stabilizing process will happen naturally; however, not
until a rainstorm or windstorm promotes removal of the loose particles. Once this occurs, there is no
need for continued treatment of these hardened surfaces.
When materials are moved to stockpile, the inherent strength is lost and the potential for fugitive
Siemens & Associates
page 2 Bend, Oregon
Johnson Road Pit: Headwall Fugitive Dust Potential Project Number 111020
Tumalo, Oregon
Siemens & Associates
dust generation is elevated. Other soils such as common topsoil present similar potential for fugitive
dust. Mitigating dust from these sources is a common challenge in every mining operation and the
situation is traditionally managed by routine application of moisture as needed, covering of
stockpiles and vegetation of surfaces for lower maintenance, longer term treatment. These are
simple operational procedures that are effective.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this commentary and would be delighted to expand any of
the topics as necessary. If you have any questions, just ask.
Siemens & Associates
Respectfully submitted,
s & Associates
s�
O
3,
w Siemens, P.E., G.E.
N ', ws 6/30/2012
3 hard copy
page 3 Bend, Oregon
June 9, 2011
Pat McClain
Latham Excavation
84 SE 5th Street
Bend, Oregon 97702
RE: Johnson Road Pit
Dear Pat,
I am writing this report to provide information about the staking that I did at Johnson Road Pit between
May 24th and May 26th of this year. With your request David Evans and Associates, Inc. provided two
AutoCAD drawing files with information they had in their records from work they had done for Latham
Excavation in the past. One drawing file, SVBSX-MCLA0016.DWG, contained survey control and the
other file, PLBSX-2-MXLA0016.DWG, contained site layout information over the aerial photo with
contour mapping. You also provided two paper copies of drawing file, PLBSX-2-MXLA0016.DWG,
plotted on February 19, 2008.
I verified the control points, set by David Evans and Associates, Inc. that I used against other control
points found on-site, with no outstanding errors, and established additional control where needed.
I calculated the easterly mining limits from scaled distances on the paper plot you provided. I staked the
north end at 720 feet west of the easterly property boundary and the south end at 850 feet west of the
easterly property boundary with a 225 radius arc connecting them.
I set stakes at elevation 3415.0 to establish the southern mining limits, except for the southwest comer
was set at 3410.0 because of a drop in elevation of the natural ground at this corner of the property.
I set stakes along the top of the low ridge, west of the current pit, by field surveying to establish the high
point of the ridge.
I set only a few stakes along the northern mining limits, per your request, since there are property line
stakes along the north boundary of the property and a fence that roughly follows the property line. The
mining limits along the north are 100 feet south of the north property line.
We found stakes to locate the northeast and southeast processing sites on my first site visit with you. I
staked the southwest processing site including references.
I shot the top of the pumice layer at both ends with an elevation of 3338 on the east end and 3345 on the
west end.
If you have any questions or need any additional information please let me know.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry C. Powell, P.L.S.
Copy: Bruce White, Attorney
REGISTERED 1
PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR
OREGON
JULY 18, 1980
JERRY1 C.
1POWELL
RENEWS 12 - 31 - 2012
Jerry C. Powell, Surveyor 23030 Donna Lane, Bend, Oregon 97701
Phone: 541-382-2955, Cell 541-678-2899
Email: jerrycpowell@1tve,com