No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-029 Part 190-23183 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DES An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as Amended, by Adoption of Site - Specific ESEE Determinations on Mineral and Aggregate Inventory Sites, Amending Zoning Maps to Reflect ESEE Determinations, Declaring an Emergency and Setting an Effective Date. REVIEWED L[C- ' CCe!jNSEL CO * 1;�•,,' ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. FINDINGS. Procedural Background 1. On December 6, 1988, the Deschutes County Board of Commis- sioners (Board) adopted by Ordinance No. 88-039 the Deschutes County mineral and aggregate resource inventory and supporting recommendations of the hearings officer and staff. Adoption of that ordinance marked completion of the first step in gaining acknowledgement pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 5 of the mineral and aggregate portion of Deschutes County's comprehensive plan, which had been remanded to the County pursuant to Coats v. LCDC. 2. Beginning in February 1989, the Planning Commission held hearings on individual inventoried sites to gather public input on conflicts between mineral and aggregate resources and other Goal 5 resources or land uses, and on the econo- mic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of protecting or not protecting the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses. The Planning Commission completed its hearings in April 1989, and made recommendations to the Board concerning whether or not the mineral and aggregate resource should be protected through zoning. 3. Starting in May of 1989, the Board of County Commissioners held hearings on individual inventory sites to make final ESEE decisions. Between May and July, hearings were held and zoning decisions made on the several most controversial sites. 4. Starting in August of 1989, the Board held ESEE hearings were held on eight occasions on the remaining sites. The 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) -19© to -1 „ 1093 hearings were held to provide the Board with sufficient information to allow the Board to determine under the Goal 5 administrative rule whether or not to zone the site for surface mining and what restrictions, if any, should be applied to mining operations and conflicting resources or land uses. Through these hearings and review of the exten- sive record developed through the Planning Commission hear- ings, the Board has acquired extensive knowledge and exper- tise in the area of surface mining impacts and conflict resolution. 5. In October 1989, zoning decisions were made on sites that remained on the inventory. Before and after the hearing, certain sites were removed from consideration by the Board, and no ESEE decision was made on them, due to their location on federal lands, their on-site use for utility or irriga- tion district purposes, or their sole use as storage sites. 6. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt the ESEE deter- minations and zoning decisions made by the Board on those sites remaining on the inventory, and zoning maps, as part of the County's comprehensive plan element for minerals and aggregate. Compliance with Other Goals 7. GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. The Board finds that Goal 1 is complied with by the extensive notice given and public hearings held at all stages of this Goal 5 process and by the provisions for citizen participation at the site plan stage of surface mine approval. Hearings with appropriate notice were held at the inventory stage, as set forth in the findings for Ordinance No. 90- 025, for the amendment of the comprehensive plan for the adoption of surface mining goal and policies, as set forth in Ordinance No. 90-028, for the ESEE determinations on each individual site on the inventory, as set forth above, and on the surface mining zoning ordinance adopted by Ordinance No. 90-014. In instances where notice was deemed to be inade- quate, the County re -noticed hearings and re -held the hearings. In this ESEE process, all proposed SM site owners and all landowners within a 1/2 mile radius of proposed surface mines were given individual written notice of the hearing date for testimony on the proposed surface mine zoning. The ordinance by which the ESEE decisions will be imple- mented provides for continuing citizen participation. New mining operations or expansion of existing operations must gain site plan approval before mining can begin. The comprehensive plan surface mining goal and policies state 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) T GU91 Al , "1094 that site plan review must be undertaken only with the opportunity for full citizen participation. Furthermore, the surface mining zoning ordinance requires that before site plan approval can be granted, the mining operator must demonstrate as part of the public hearing process that applicable federal, state, and local environmental regula- tions are or can be met. 8. GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING. Statewide planning Goal 2 is satisfied by: (a) the adoption of comprehensive plan goal and policies for surface mining; (b) the adoption of a zoning ordinance that will implement the ESEE decisions through clear and objective standards; (c) by consultation with experts in the fields of geology, mining and reclama- tion, fish and wildlife, with federal land management agencies and state highway division personnel, and by consultation with representatives of the mining industry and neighborhood groups; and (d) by the extensive factual record generated by the inventory and ESEE process and the site specific treatment of each site. 9. GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS. Goal 3 is satisfied by recognition in the ESEE process that farm uses can be compatible with surface mining zoning as an interim (prior to extraction) or secondary (after resource depletion) use relative to mining of a mineral or aggregate source. The surface mining ordinance allows agricultural uses in Surface Mining (SM) and Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) zones while eliminating other uses, except forest and geothermal uses. Allowing farm uses in the SM zone preserves agricul- tural lands for farm uses, recognizing that farm uses do not irretrievably commit the surface of mineral and aggregate resources to conflicting uses. 10. GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS. Goal 4 is satisfied in a similar manner to Goal 3 by allowing for forest uses in the SM and SMIA zones to the exclusion of most other uses, except surface mining and related activities. 11. GOAL 6 - AIR, LAND, AND WATER RESOURCES. Goal 6 is satis- fied by the requirement in the surface mining zoning ordi- nance that before site plan approval for a new or expanded mining operation can occur, the applicant must demonstrate that the mining operation will meet all applicable federal, state, and local standards that protect air, land, and water resources. In addition, in individual cases in the ESEE process, conditions have been included that will assure that applicable environmental standards will be met at particular sites. 12. GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS. Not applicable. 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) (31 `? 2 toll - 1095 13. GOAL 8 - RECREATION NEEDS. Providing for recreational needs is important to the Deschutes County economy. Open space, scenic views, fish and wildlife and their habitat, and scenic waterways are important amenities in the enhancement of recreational opportunities in the County. Goal 8 has been satisfied by the attention given to preservation of such values in this Goal 5 process. A policy has been adopted in the surface mining comprehen- sive plan prohibiting SM zoning in critical and sensitive resource areas (including fish and wildlife habitats, wetlands and riparian areas, recreation and open space areas, and archaeological and historic sites) when such areas and resources have been evaluated in light of all comprehensive plan goals and policies and are determined through the Goal 5 process to conflict with the SM site and to be of such importance relative to an inventoried mineral and aggregate resource site as to require complete protec- tion. In addition, in the individual ESEE determinations the importance of conflicting Goal 5 values has been recog- nized in limiting surface mining operations to accommodate open space, scenic, fish and wildlife and scenic waterway values. 14. GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE. Minerals and aggregate are a commodity having a market value. As such, excavation of minerals and aggregate add wealth to the state and local economy. Minerals and aggregate also promote economic well- being in that they are an essential raw material in con- structing infrastructure and buildings. Goal 9 has been satisfied by the preservation through the Goal 5 process of significant amounts of mineral and aggregate sufficient to meet demand on the County during the applicable twenty-year planning cycle. All mineral resources have economic value as commodities. The state and local economy is strengthened by the preserva- tion of supply, which allows for the creation of wealth from the marketing of the product. This in turn creates job opportunities in the extraction, processing, and marketing of such products. Some mineral products found in the county, such as diatomaceous earth and pumice, have economic value chiefly for commodity purposes. Others, such as aggregate, cinders, and select fill resources have addi- tional economic value in the purposes they serve for the community at large. Aggregate, select fill, and to a lesser degree, cinders, are essential for the construction of roads and highways and are an essential ingredient for building materials such as concrete. As such, these materials are vital to the con- tinued growth and maintenance of the community. At the same 4 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) )19 time, local deposits of aggregate and dirt are limited, and the availability of those deposits is threatened by incom- patible development, such as rural residential development. Moreover, because of their bulk, aggregate and dirt resources would be expensive to transport into the area. Preservation of sufficient local aggregate and dirt supplies is therefore an important step in encouraging growth of economic opportunities in the County. 15. GOAL 10 - HOUSING. Aggregate and select fill are essential materials to the construction of housing in the area. Through the Goal 5 process, aggregate and select fill sources have been identified and sufficient quantities of quality material have been preserved to meet regional demand for housing material. The livability of existing residen- tial uses near proposed surface mines has been protected through the ESEE process and through the zoning ordinance provisions regulating traffic, noise, dust, and visual impacts of surface mining. Although new residential and other uses will be limited in the SMIA zone surrounding SM zones, there is still plenty of undeveloped land in the county to support such uses. 16. GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES. Not applicable. 17. GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION. Goal 12 has been met by the identification and preservation of sufficient quantities of aggregate and cinders to meet the area's demand for mate- rials for road construction and maintenance. Aggregate, and to a lesser extent, cinders, are essential to building and maintaining safe roads and highways. 18. GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION. Mineral and aggregate resources are bulky and consume great amounts of energy to transport. Goal 13 has been met by the preservation of sufficient quantities of aggregate resources that supplies of inventoried minerals and aggregate need not be trans- ported into the County from outside the area for use in the County. 19. GOALS 14 - 19. Not applicable. Compliance with Goal 5 20. Goal 5 is met through the amendment of the comprehensive plan by the addition of the surface mining element (Inven- tory, Goals and Policies, site-specific ESEE decisions), the adoption of the surface mining ordinance, and the zoning and mapping of individual sites to allow or not allow surface mining in a manner to protect the economic, social, environ- mental, and energy needs of the citizens of Deschutes County with respect to mineral and aggregate and the conflicting 5 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) W_ 011-911 101 -, 100-x' Goal 5 values of fish and wildlife, open space, scenic views, scenic waterways, and conflicting land uses, such as rural residential uses, according to their relative impor- tance to one another for each individual site. Goal 5 and the Oregon Administrative Rules OAR 660-16-010 et seq. have been followed in this process as follows: (a) An inventory of significant or important mineral and aggregate resources has been adopted as Ordinance No. 90-025 that determines the quantity, quality and location of each mineral or aggregate site, as required in OAR Section 660-16-000. (b) Conflicting uses have been identified according to OAR 660-60-015 in the individual ESEE documents adopted by this Ordinance. (c) All inventoried sites were found to have conflicting Goal 5 resources and/or land uses and were subject to an economic, social, environmental and energy conse- quences (ESEE) analysis as required by LCDC Goal 5 and OAR 660-16-005(2). The ESEE analysis enables the County to provide reasons why decisions outlined in OAR 660-16-010 have been made for specific sites. These reasons are contained in the specific ESEE documents appended to this Ordinance as Appendix A and which are hereby incorporated by reference into this Ordinance. (d) Development of a program to meet the goal of protecting mineral and aggregate resources in the county has taken shape through the individual ESEE decisions and the implementation of those ESEE decisions through the surface mining ordinance, adopted as Ordinance No. 90- 014. The surface mining ordinance establishes stan- dards and procedures for surface mining operations and for development on lands within the impact area of a surface mining site. The ordinance provides that standards and procedures established in site-specific ESEE analyses control over the standards and procedures in the zoning ordinance where there is a conflict. The ordinance also provides that the standards and proce- dures in the ordinance and the site-specific ESEE analyses apply to sites with existing DOGAMI and/or County permits or exemptions only when such sites are expanded beyond the boundary of the areas covered by such permit or exemption. (e) It was found that at certain inventoried sites, con- flicting natural resource values and/or land uses were more important relative to the conflicting mineral and aggregate resource to warrant full protection of the 6 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) r ( � 1098 conflicting natural resource values and/or land uses. In such instances, the site was not zoned for surface mining and appropriate other zoning designation reflec- ting the land use at the site and the surrounding area will be retained or adopted. Based upon the site-spec- ific ESEE analysis, decisions were made to protect the conflicting Goal 5 and/or land uses and not designate for surface mining at sites 246, 251, 271, 273, 278, 288, 292, 297, 313, 314, 317, 326, 339, 341, 347, 351, 358, 392, 393, 400, 423, 433, 453, 467, 475, 541 and 542, all as identified on Exhibit "G" of Ordinance No. 90-025 and the individual ESEE decisions. (f) It was found that certain inventory sites have both conflicting Goal 5 resources and/or land uses and mineral and aggregate resources that are important relative to one another and that both the mineral and aggregate resource and the conflicting Goal 5 resources and/or land uses should be limited in a manner to allow each to occur at and around the site. Based upon the site-specific ESEE analysis, decisions were made to provide for both the mineral and aggregate use and the conflicting Goal 5 and/or land uses, pursuant to site- specific conditions and the surface mining zoning ordi- nance provisions, at sites 248, 249, 252, 275, 277, 282, 283, 293, 294, 296, 303, 304, 305/306, 315, 316, 322, 324, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335, 336, 342, 345, 346, 355, 356, 357, 361, 366, 368, 370, 379, 381, 390, 391, 392, 394, 395, 404, 405, 408, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 421, 426, 427, 432, 441-443, 459, 461, 465, 466, 469, 482, 488, 498, 499, 500, 501, 503, 505, 506, 508, 515, 522, 524, 528, 529, 533 and 543, all as identified on Exhibit "G" of Ordinance No. 90-025 and the individual ESEE decisions. Zoning 21. In 1979, pursuant to the adoption of its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, the County applied SM and SMR zoning to certain sites having mineral and aggregate resources. Those sites have remained so zoned to this day. 22. During the current inventory process, sites were identified for inclusion based upon the quantity, quality, and location of the mineral and aggregate resource without reference to whether the site was currently zoned for surface mining or not. Consequently, some of the inventoried sites are currently zoned SM or SMR and other inventoried sites do not have SM or SMR zoning, as they had not been recognized as containing mineral and aggregate resources in the previous comprehensive plan process. For the most part these sites are zoned for either farm or forest uses. 7 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) T_ 0196 101 1099 23. For those sites approved through the ESEE process for surface mining uses the zoning will be changed or retained, as appropriate, consistent with the mapping for each site as set forth in Exhibit B. 24. For those sites that through the ESEE process were not approved for surface mining, the zoning at the site will be change or retained, as appropriate, consistent with the mapping for each site as set forth in Exhibit C. Twenty-seven sites from the inventory were not approved for surface mining. In those cases where the current zoning is SM or SMR, the SM or SMR zoning is being removed. By adoption of this Ordinance, SM or SMR zoning will be replaced with the adjacent zoning from the surrounding zone. Where there is more than one adjacent zoning district, the zoning will be changed to that zoning indicated for the site by applicable portions of the comprehensive plan. The zoning for all denied sites is shown on maps set forth in Exhibit "C." 25. Some of the sites currently zoned SM or SMR in the County were not included in the County's inventory adopted by Ordinance No. 90-014. The exclusion of such sites occurred for a variety of reasons, including their classification as federal sites, stockpile sites, or irrigation district sites, receipt of information that there was no resource at the site or redrawing of inventory site boundaries to exclude presently zoned SM sites from the inventoried sites. Consequently, in such cases, the current SM or SMR zoning does not reflect the outcome of this Goal 5 process. The Board finds that there is a need to clarify the zoning status of such parcels. In the interest of making a timely conclusion of the process for those sites that were con- sidered in this ESEE process, however, the Board determines that clarification of the zoning status of those residual SM and SMR sites will occur on or before September 30, 1990. Section 2. ADOPTION OF ESEE DECISIONS AS PART OF COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN. Based upon the findings set forth above, the site specific ESEE decisions, set forth in Appendix A and fully incorporated by reference herein, are hereby adopted as part of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Each individual ESEE decision incorporates findings 7 through 19 set forth in this Ordinance. Section 3. ADOPTION OF ZONING REFLECTING ESEE DECISIONS. The zoning at each of the sites on the County's mineral and aggregate inventory, as set forth in Exhibit G of Ordinance No. 90-014, is hereby retained or changed, as the case may be, to reflect the ESEE decisions of the Board consistent with the maps set forth as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference herein. 8 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) 019 i 0 l - 1100 Section 4. RESIDUAL SM AND SMR ZONING. The zoning of SM and SMR sites that did not appear on the county's inventory, Exhibit G to Ordinance No. 90-014, and accordingly were not subject to an ESEE decision shall be clarified in a future rezoning process, on or before September 30, 1990, that will reflect the findings supporting this Ordinance. Section 5. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on July 16, 1990. Section 6. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. It is the legislative intent of this Ordinance that if any part of this Ordinance or any of the individual attachments hereto is held to be invalid or otherwise void, each and every other provision or attachment shall remain in force. Section 7. EFFECT OF ORDINANCE. Except as otherwise stated herein in Section 20(d) and in the Deschutes County Zoning Ordi- nance No. 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, as to each inventoried site, this Ordinance supercedes any previous legislative or quasi-judicial zoning determination at that site concerning surface m.ning. DATED this hl? t" day of , 1990. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SC S COU Y, OREGON 5z4z,_/.t�, /_ L IS, ISTOW PRANTE, AT EST::` Recording Secretary 9 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-029 (7/12/90) ssioner sioner T 01.19` APPENDIX A I() -I I - 1101 11U2 ESEE OVERVIEW This document includes as Appendix Al a general description of the Goal 5 ESEE process and an analysis of the general ESEE consequences of zoning or not zoning surface mining sites from an area -wide perspective. This ESEE analysis served as the basis for the staff reports on each site and the site-specific ESEE findings and decisions attached hereto as Exhibit A2. The analysis focuses on aggregate, since the need for that resource is most critical and aggregate sites have tended to be the highest conflict sites. This analysis was based on the inventory as originally adopted by the Commission on December 9, 1988. In the interim, storage and processing, irrigation district and certain federal sites have been removed from the inventory under consideration. However, the analysis presented therein is still considered relevant. Following the removal of the above-mentioned sites from the inventory, the area -wide impacts of surface mining will be, if anything, less severe and the need for aggregate greater than as expressed in that document. The impacts analysis in the staff reports for the individual sites is based upon an extensive impact model drafted by the Planning staff. That impact model is a part of the general Goal 5 surface mining record supporting the Deschutes County Surface Mining element of its Comprehensive Plan, of which this ESEE package is a part. A bibliography describing the resources consulted and utilized in the impacts analysis is also included as part of the general surface mining record. The site specific ESEE analyses follow, covering each site on the County's inventory, as set forth in Exhibit G to Deschutes County Ordinance No. 90-025. These ESEE analyses are preceded by an errata sheet correcting or clarifying certain facts used in the ESEE findings and conditions imposed in the ESEE analyses. APPENDIX Al (AREA -WIDE ESEE DISCUSSION) 0l - 1103 .- 0201. Al 1" 1104 GOAL 5 PROCESS Goal 5 requires the county to "conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." (The complete text of the Goal and the implementing administrative rules are included in the Appendix.) Among the resources for which protection is required are mineral and aggregate resources. The Goal 5 administrative rules describe the process by which the county must implement Goal 5. The rules divide the Goal 5 process into four major stages: 1. Inventory (OAR 660-16-000): development of the resource inventory, based upon available data on the location, quality and quantity of the resource. 2. Conflicting Uses (OAR 660-16-005(1)): identification of uses which conflict with the inventoried resources. 3. ESEE Analysis (OAR 660-16-005(2)): evaluation of the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of allowing the identified conflicting uses on the inventoried resource sites. Both impacts on the resource site and on the conflicting use must be considered in the analysis. 4. Developing a Plan to Achieve the Goal (OAR 660-16-010): development of a plan to resolve conflicts with other uses while protecting the resource. In the inventory stage, the location, quantity and quality of the resource must be inventoried. The location of the resource must be designated on a map or in a description of the boundaries of the resource site. Resource quantity is determined by consider- ing the relative abundance of the resource. Resource quality is determined by evaluating the quality of the resource site rela- tive to other sites of the same resource category. The administrative rule gives the county three options with respect to resources identified in the inventory process. Based upon available data, the county may: 1. not include the resource on the adopted inventory, if it determines from available data that the resource "is not important enough to warrant inclusion on the plan inventory;" 2. delay the Goal 5 process, if the available data indi- cates a possible resource, but is insufficient to complete the Goal 5 process; or 1 aaw 3. include the resource on the its determination that the important." plan inventory, based upon resource is "significant or The administrative rule provides that once resource sites are inventoried, the county must identify all other Goal 5 resources, and other land uses, which may conflict with the inventoried Goal 5 resource sites. The inventory of other resources is based upon data including the county's comprehensive plan resource elements (e.g., "Deschutes River Study," Geothermal Element, etc.) The inventory of conflicting uses is based primarily upon the uses allowed in the zoning districts established by the county's zoning ordinances. A "conflicting use,, is defined in the administrative rule as one which, if allowed, could "negatively impact" a Goal 5 resource site. Where conflicting uses are identified, it may be deter- mined that the Goal 5 resource sites also impacts those uses. The administrative rule provides that if no conflicting uses or resources are identified for a particular Goal 5 resource site, the county must adopt policies and ordinance provisions which insure that the resource site is fully preserved and protected. If conflicting resources or uses are identified, the impacts of Goal 5 resource site, other resources and conflicting uses upon each other must be evaluated through an analysis of the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of those impacts. Once the ESEE analysis of each Goal 5 resource site is completed, the county must develop "a program to achieve the Goal." In other words, the county must develop a plan which resolves identified conflicts between the resource site and the other Goal 5 resources and conflicting uses, while protecting the Goal 5 resource site. The administrative rule gives the county three options for adopting a plan to achieve the Goal. The county may: 1. Protect the Goal 5 resource site fully -- based upon its determination from the inventory and ESEE analysis that the resource is so important, relative to con- flicting uses, and the impact of those conflicting uses is so great, that the resource site should be protected and no conflicting uses allowed. 2. Allow conflicting uses fully -- based upon the county's determination that the conflicting use is of such importance, relative to the resource site, that the conflicting use should be allowed fully notwithstanding its possible impacts upon the resource. K 0203 ifj-1 - 11UG 3. Limit conflicting uses -- based upon the county's determination that both the resource site and the conflicting use are important relative to each other, and that the ESEE consequences should be balanced to allow the conflicting use in a limited way so as to protect the resource to some desired extent. AREA DESCRIPTION Deschutes County is located in the geographical center of the state and is bordered on the south by Klamath and Lake Counties, on the east by Crook and Harney Counties, on the north by Jefferson County and on the west by Lane and Linn Counties. The County covers 3,060 square miles (1,939,200 acres). It ranks 11th in terms of land area of the 36 counties in Oregon. The entire county lies in the Deschutes River drainage basin with elevations of slightly over 3,000 feet at Redmond and Sisters, and 3,650 feet at Bend. The wide variation in altitude and precipitation results in a great diversity of vegetation. The foothills and lower eleva- tions of the Cascade are thickly timbered with fir, hemlock and pine (Douglas Fir, White Fir, Lodgepole Pine and Ponderosa Pine). By contrast, the vegetation in the High Lava Plains in the eastern part of the County changes eastward from Ponderosa Pine and Lodgepole Pine to Juniper, sagebrush and rabbit brush. Bunchgrass and planted grasses, such as crested wheat grass, are also present. The northward flowing Deschutes River divides the County into distinct physiographic provinces. West of the river are the foothills and towering peaks of the Cascades. East of the river is the gently undulating lava -covered plain, where no distinctive drainage pattern has yet been established. The northern part of the High Lava Plain slopes gently northward. Here, the Deschutes River and its tributaries have steep -walled canyons in the flat - lying lavas and sedimentary materials. South of Bend, the High Lava Plains are dominated by the massive Newberry Volcano (8,010 feet elev.) which has a complex eruptive history and now holds two large lakes within its summit caldera. Deschutes County could be called "The Land of a Thousand Volcanoes." More than 500 large volcanoes, cinder cones or volcanic vents can be counted on the geologic map, and probably that many or more are obscured by erosion and later sedimentary and volcanic cover. It is likely that Deschutes County contains a greater abundance and variety of volcanic landforms than any other area of similar size in the United States. 3 7- 020,1 0-1 - 1107 The geologic make-up of Deschutes County produces an environment where mineral and aggregate resources generally are more numerous west of the Deschutes River than east of the river. The lava flows from Lava Butte and Newberry Crater were affected by the Deschutes River's flow and this accounts for much of the lava formations and shallow soils near and east of Bend. The area west of the Deschutes River, however, has intermittent aggregate deposits from glacial trails and tils occurring from the ice age and deposits resulting from floods near the Sisters area. ESEE ANALYSIS Introduction This section describes the process by which the ESEE analysis of mineral and aggregate resource sites is conducted, and the factors considered in the analysis. The analysis process pro- vides a mechanism by which to measure: 1) the significance of the mineral and aggregate resource site relative to the value of other Goal 5 resources and conflicting uses; 2) the degree of the impacts upon the resource site from conflicting uses and other Goal 5 resources; and 3) the degree of the impacts upon the conflicting uses and other Goal 5 resources from the resource site. The Goal 5 administrative rules require that the ESEE analysis of the county's inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites be site-specific. However, some factors in the ESEE analysis of those sites are common throughout the county, and are discussed generally in this section to avoid unnecessary repetition. The site-specific ESEE analyses are included in another section of this document. Area -Wide Conflicting Uses As noted above, the Goal 5 administrative rules describe a "conflicting use" as one which, if allowed, could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource site. In addition, the rule recognizes that where conflicting uses have been identified, the Goal 5 resource may impact those uses. The Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. PL -15, establishes numerous zoning districts throughout the county, and through those districts regulates the uses of land therein. 4 014'.105) ) ,OIL - 1108 Because identified mineral and aggregate resource sites are located throughout the county, virtually every site will be impacted by uses in one or more of the county's zoning districts. The following zoning districts exist within the county: - Exclusive Farm Use - 320 (EFU 320) - Exclusive Farm Use - 80 (EFU 80) - Exclusive Farm Use - 40 (EFU 40) - Exclusive Farm Use - 20 (EFU 20) - Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10) - Forest Use (F-1) - Forest Use (F-2) - Forest Use (F-3) - Open Space and Conservation (OS & C) - Rural Residential (RR -10) - Rural Service Center (RSC) - Rural Service Residential (RSR -M) - Rural Service Residential - 5 (RSR -5) - Airport Development (A -D) - Landscape Management Combining (LM) - Wildlife Area Combining (WA) - Conventional Housing Combining (CH) - Flood Plain (FP) - Rural Industrial (R -I) - Research and Development (R & D) All of the above zones permit uses, either outright or condition- ally, that could negatively impact mineral and aggregate resource sites. Conversely, many of these uses also could be negatively impacted by such resource sites. The uses permitted in these zones range from such passive uses as public wildlife reserves or management areas and open space, to intensive uses such as public and private campgrounds and destination resorts. Permitted uses in these zoning districts which may negatively impact mineral and aggregate resource sites include: - farming activities, including the raising of livestock - dwellings (single- and multi -family, condominiums, mobile home parks) - parks, playgrounds, community buildings - churches, schools, hospitals - commercial uses (such as retail stores, restaurants, offices) - tourist and recreation facilities (such as golf courses, swimming facilities, bicycle paths) - airstrips (public and private) Agriculture, forestry and residential uses are the conflicting uses which most commonly occur at or near mineral and aggregate resource sites. For example, there are many rural residences within the county which have been constructed on legal parcels 5 01121 A; �]i - 1109 (created before adoption of the county's comprehensive plan and the statewide land use planning goals) which are adjacent to inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites. Another prevalent conflicting land use is recreational use. According to documents included in the record of the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study ("River Study"), high quality environment and substantial recreational opportunities in Deschutes County are major attributes for the county and are principle reasons why many people have settled here. Area -Wide Conflicting Goal 5 Resources In addition to the conflicting land uses described above, there are numerous identified Goal 5 resources at or near mineral and aggregate resource sites which may conflict with mineral and aggregate resource sites. Identified Goal 5 resources which exist throughout the county include: Land needed and desirable for open space - Fish and wildlife areas and habitats - Ecologically and scientifically significant natural areas, including desert areas - Outstanding scenic view and sites - Water areas, wetlands, watersheds and groundwater resources - Wilderness areas - Historic areas, sites, structures and objects - Cultural areas - Potential and approved Oregon recreation trails - Potential and approved federal wild and scenic water- ways and state scenic waterways Wildlife resources and habitat are particularly significant throughout the county. Documents in the record of the "River Study" indicate that the diversity of habitats on the eastern slopes of the Cascades support nearly seventy percent of the state's native vertebrates. For example, mule deer, the most plentiful of the big game species found in Deschutes County, require both summering and wintering areas. Summering areas need to provide adequate space, grass forage, fawning and calving, thermal cover, and escape from human and predator harassment. Wintering areas need to provide relatively snow -free feeding areas with good supplies of grass and browse species in close proximity to tree and brush cover. Extraction and processing of mineral and aggregate resources could negatively impact such habitat by such activities as removing vegetation used for forage and cover, and harassment due to human proximity and noise. C 0 .e( i There also exist significant populations of waterfowl, upland game birds and fur -bearing animals throughout Deschutes County. (Estimated populations of the different species may be found in the appendices.) Habitat needed for this wildlife may be adversely impacted by mineral and aggregate extraction and processing by such activities as removal of vegetation, siltation of water through runoff, and human harassment by proximity and noise. The most significant wildlife habitat resources in the county are the critical winter deer ranges, antelope calving areas, and habitat areas needed for rare and endangered species, including the Peregrine Falcon, the Bald Eagle, the Northern Spotted Owl, and the wolverine. Determination of Relative Values of Resources and Conflicting Uses The Goal 5 administrative rules provide that once conflicting resources and uses are identified, the county must perform an ESEE analysis of each site to determine the relative values and the level of conflict between the Goal 5 resource and the con- flicting resources and uses. A number of factors must be considered in the process of assign- ing relative values to resources and conflicting uses. Some resources and uses are susceptible to quantification. others are not. In the case of mineral and aggregate resource sites, the relative value of the site may be determined by several quantitative factors, including: 1. the relative quantity of the resource -- i.e., how large is the resource at the site, in comparison with other sites of the same resource type; 2. the relative quality of the resource -- i.e., whether the resource meets industry standards for a particular use, how the quality compares to other sites of the same type of resource, etc. 3. the location of the resource site relative to the market for the resource -- i.e., whether the resource site is sufficiently close to the market for its development to be economically feasible. In the case of other Goal 5 resources, the value of that resource relative to mineral and aggregate resources will depend upon factors including: 7 �. 0 A f� 1. the nature of the resource -- i.e., endangered species, archaeological site, wetland habitat; 2. its location relative to the mineral and aggregate resource; and 3. the sensitivity of the resource to conflicts. The relative value of conflicting uses is determined by evaluat- ing the use under factors including the following: 1. the nature of the conflicting use -- i.e., the degree of intensity of the use; 2. the market or other value of the conflicting use, if quantifiable; 3. the location of the conflicting use relative to the mineral and aggregate resource; 4. whether the conflicting use is permitted outright or conditionally; 5. whether the conflicting use already exists or is a potential use; and 6. the extent to which impacts of the conflicting use on mineral and aggregate resources can be mitigated. Determination of Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of Impacts and Conflicts Once the relative values of the mineral and aggregate resource, other Goal 5 resources, and conflicting uses on a particular site have been determined, the county must evaluate the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of preserving the resource(s) versus allowing the conflicting uses. Many of the economic, social, environmental and energy conse- quences of preserving the mineral and aggregate resource and of allowing conflicting uses are generally identifiable without regard to site-specific factors. Those general consequences are identified and analyzed below in this document. Selection of the Conflict -Resolution Alternative The purpose of the ESEE analysis of the impacts and conflicts is to select for each mineral and aggregate site one of the three conflict -resolution options authorized by the Goal 5 administra- tive rules: 02019 101 :, 1112 1. protecting the mineral and aggregate resource fully (no conflicting uses allowed); 2. allowing conflicting uses fully (regardless of their impact upon the mineral and aggregate resource); or 3. limiting conflicting uses to some degree and protect the mineral and aggregate resource to some degree (balancing the impacts). Adoptina a Plan to Achieve the Goal Once the conflict -resolution alternative has been selected for each mineral and aggregate site, the county adopts a plan to carry out these choices by comprehensive plan and zoning ordi- nance provisions. AREA -WIDE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES Mineral and aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Therefore, any analysis of the economic consequences of protecting or limiting the resource necessarily will focus on the market impacts -- i.e., the effect on supply and demand. How- ever, other, less direct economic impacts, must also be analyzed, such as the impacts upon employment, income, transportation and tourism. Under basic economic principles, if there is a change in supply, there may be change in demand, a vice versa. The magnitude of the change is an important consideration. In the case of mineral and aggregate resources, the demand for the resource is Deschutes County is relatively predictable, and can be predicted to increase with the county's growth. The variable is supply. Therefore, the major issue in analyzing the direct economic impact of preserving or limiting the resource is the effect on supply. A significant reduction in the supply of mineral and aggregate resource available to meet the demand in Deschutes County, through the loss or restriction in the use of the resource, likely will produce a corresponding increase in demand and price for the remaining supply. In addition, because of the extraordi- nary amount of capital required to establish and operate a surface mining company, a significant reduction in resource supply could make it not economically feasible for an operator to enter the market or to continue to operate. With respect to the less direct economic impacts of preserving or limiting the mineral and aggregate resource, the county's employ- ment and income characteristics can be expected to feel a much 9 ( 'Z :_0 10.1 - 1113 more limited impact. The surface mining industry itself employs relatively few people. The principal sources of employment in the county are wood products, the tourism and service industries, and government. These industries are not directly dependent upon a supply of mineral and aggregate resources. Another less direct economic impact is upon transportation and construction. Since the primary consumers of mineral and aggre- gate resources are governments for transportation projects and contractors for general construction, a significant reduction in the supply of the resource could have a negative impact upon the construction and maintenance of roads, as well as on the con- struction of dwellings and other structures. Analysis and Summary From an overall perspective, there should be no adverse economic impact from the preservation of mineral and aggregate resources in Deschutes County. The county -wide need for mineral and aggregate resources has been estimated to be, at a minimum, 2 million cubic yards per year. 4 About 96,000 acres have been identified as suitable for mineral and aggregate production within Deschutes County. Approximately 86,100 acres of that land has been identified as being relatively free of constraints -- i.e., free of topographical, economical or land use restrictions. Only about 10, 500 acres are located in close proximity to the county's major population centers. Therefore, only about 9 percent of the total acreage containing mineral and aggregate resources is likely to have negative impacts on adjacent residen- tial uses and for which constraints might be anticipated. 5. Mineral and aggregate resources are locationally dependent, and shortages may result if the resources are not permitted to be developed on lands located near enough to market areas to be economically feasible to develop. As an example, of the approx- imately 82 million cubic yards of sand and gravel resources identified on the county's mineral and aggregate resource inven- tory, approximately 34 million cubic yards (or 41%) of these resources are located within 15 to 20 miles of Bend, Tumalo and Redmond. 5. Approximately 35 percent (28,470,000 cu. yds.) of the identified sand and gravel resource is anticipated to have few or no nega- tive impacts or development constraints. The primary economic disadvantage of these sites is that they are all over 15 to 20 miles from consumer markets. 5. Portions of both constrained and unconstrained land in Deschutes County contain other Goal 5 resources. Conservation and protec- tion of these other resources may result in a reduction of land potentially available for the extraction of mineral and aggregate resources. W 1101 - 1114 Property tax impacts from the zoning and development of mineral and aggregate resource sites are not expected to be significant, although there may be some short-term negative impacts upon some individual residential properties. Contrary to the common perception, the data indicate that values of properties located adjacent to surface mining operations do not decrease substan- tially. Case studies in Deschutes County indicated that fluctua- tions in property values for those properties located in proxim- ity to surface mines are more dependent upon the national and regional economic picture.' Generally, because manufacturing jobs (which would include some forms of employment in the surface mining industry) tend to pay higher wages, the creation of manufacturing jobs is viewed by the community as beneficial. The addition of raw materials and labor to create a product adds value to it. When the raw material is exported from the region, the money which pays for it flows back into the region, increasing the regional wealth. The higher average wages for manufacturing jobs will also allow a continua- tion or improvement of the community's standard of living. Displacement of industrial employment opportunities by protection of a Goal 5 resource has a greater potential adverse impact than would the displacement of an equivalent number of non -manufactur- ing jobs. In summary, adverse economic impact will result when insufficient lands are available for mineral and aggregate resources. Given the projected annual demand of 2 million cubic yards of quality aggregate, and considering the non-renewable nature of the resource, it is to the benefit of the Deschutes County community to preserve and protect as many acres of mineral and aggregate resource as is economically and environmentally feasible. Findings A total of nearly 96,000 acres of land in Deschutes County are affected by surface mining sites. This represents only about 5 percent of the total area in Deschutes County. ' The Assessor's office has determined from records of land transactions in the Tumalo Rim subdivision near sites 305 and 306 that land transactions continue despite the presence of nearby mines. Similarly, a review of assessor's records for section 30 hear the Bend Aggregate sites of Highland and Cline Falls (site 488) shows that sales have occurred during the period from 1986 through 1988. Information on real estate value was obtained from appraisal jackets from the Deschutes County apprai- ser's office. 11 - T ,W Al -A 1115 Demand These findings are based upon the report to the PSU Center for Population Research & Census, dated December 14, 1988. 1. County estimates the total county population as 79,000. 2. The 1980 census established a population for Deschutes County of 62,142. 3. This represents a 16,858 person gain or 21 percent. 4. The unincorporated portion of the county is estimated at 48,000 for 1988 by the county. 5. The 1980 census established a population of 37,731 for the unincorporated area of Deschutes County. Employment Findings 1. The average size of the 1985 labor force in Deschutes County was 29,740 and average unemployment was 3,620 or 10.9%. This compare with a statewide rate of 8.8%.1 2. Between the years of 1970 and 1985, the average annual growth rate for the lumber and wood products industry was 4.4%, while the State of Oregon's growth rate was -.3%. 3. The mineral and aggregate industry employs approximately 130 employees.3 4. The majority of new jobs added in Deschutes County between 1970 and 1985 (a total of 13,500) have been generated in the services and miscellaneous (3,900), trade (3,280), F.I.R.E. (4,700) and government (2,000) groups. 5. Between 1980 and 1985, employment in the lumber and wood products industry increased 28.1%.1 6. In 1985, employment in the lumber and wood products industry comprised 6.2% of total employment and 31.8% of the manufac- turing employment.) 7. Between 1980 and 1985, the lumber and wood products industry increased its employment by 28%, the service industry by 30% and finance, insurance and real estate industries by 176%. Income 1. Per capita income in 1984 and $10,337 in Deschutes County. The state average for per capita income was $11,613, well above the county figure.) 12 ` QA-' t Al 1.11G 2. The sources of personal income have changed dramatically in recent years. Between 1979 and 1984, wage and salary income increased by only 25%, significantly less than total income growth of 41%. The fastest growing sources of income were transfer payments (up 90%) and dividends, interest and rent (up 75%). By 1984, wage and salaries represented only 50% of total personal income in Deschutes County.) 3. The average annual wage in the travel -related industries is $9,062.2 4. Average annual wage in the lumber and wood products industry is $19,467.2 5. Income from agriculture was $24.9 million during 1985. A 12.1% increase over 1984 and 83% above 1982.1 6. In 1985, 26.8% of Deschutes County's farm income came from field crops and 73.2% came from livestock.) 7. Cattle and calves contributed 21.1% of the total farm income, but the bulk of livestock sales can be traced to miscellaneous animals, namely llamas and horses. Over 41% of all Deschutes County's total farm sales and over 80% of livestock sales come from the animals.) 8. The $10.3 million in farm income from miscellaneous live- stock ranked Deschutes County first of all 36 counties in Oregon in terms of miscellaneous livestock farm income.) 9. In 1984 receipts attributed to the travel -related industries totaled $87,192,000. 10. The payroll for the Oregon Concrete and Aggregate Producers Association members in Deschutes County is $4 million.3 AREA -WIDE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES Deschutes County represents an area of major recreational oppor- tunity, since active and passive recreation constitute two of the largest uses of the land. Recreation opportunities are important to Deschutes County residents as indicated by their unwillingness to accept losses in certain types of recreational opportunities even if economic disadvantages are the result. 6 The quality of the environment has been and will continue to be an increasingly influential factor in attracting people to Deschutes County. Few losses in environmental qualities are acceptable to Deschutes County residents even if such losses would be accompanied by economic benefits. 13 I 0 1 - 111-1 Because of the high social value placed by Deschutes County residents and visitors upon scenic, recreational and high quality environments in the county, the preservation of mineral and aggregate resource sites in or adjacent to those areas may have negative impacts. Surface mining operations may increase the noise, dust, traffic and negative visual impacts. These negative impacts may be particularly significant in areas within river and stream corridors. However, only a small percentage of mineral and aggregate resource sites are located in or adjacent to river and stream corridors. Summary and Analysis From an overall perspective, there should be no adverse social impacts from the preservation of mineral and aggregate resources in Deschutes County. The social costs of preserving the mineral and aggregate resources concern reducing the livability of the area by decreasing the amount of open space and scenic views, negatively impacting the tourism and recreation industry by potentially reducing the vegetative, wildlife and scenic resources considered important to those industries, and nega- tively impacting transportation facilities. The inventory of mineral and aggregate resources identifies about 311 sites which could be zoned for surface mining. These 311 sites occupy approximately 96,000 acres (or five percent) of the 1,939,200 acres in the county. In general, therefore, the social cost of preserving five percent of the total area of Deschutes County for mineral and aggregate resources does not outweigh the social benefit of having available a needed, non-renewable resource at low cost. However, the social cost of preserving mineral and aggregate resources in areas of high scenic and recreational value, such as within river and stream corridors, may be significant. The social benefits of preserving non-renewable mineral and aggregate resources are related in part to the number of rela- tively high -paying jobs in this manufacturing sector compared with the number of relatively low-paying jobs in the tourism and recreation industries. Another social benefit concerns the relatively short-term life span of surface mines compared with the long term use of the land for tourism and recreation. There is a greater net social benefit to the county and its residents in preserving the non- renewable resource and allowing them to enjoy the use of the resource at a substantially lower cost than would otherwise be the case. As discussed in the area -wide economic consequences analysis, the potential negative impact of surface mining on the values of adjacent properties is less significant than may be perceived. 14 Perceived diminished "livability" due to proximity to surface mines appears not to translate into reduced property values. Data developed by the Deschutes County Assessor's office indi- cates that sales and values of properties adjacent to surface mines appear to be affected by national and regional economic factors, rather than proximity to surface mining sites. In summary, given the fact that only approximately five percent of the land in Deschutes County contains mineral and aggregate resource sites, and that property values generally do not decline in value or cease to sell with the development of adjacent surface mines, from an overall perspective, there are not adverse social impacts from preservation of mineral and aggregate resources. However, with respect to other natural resources (such as open space, significant scenic areas and wildlife habitats) due to the value of these other resources, surface mining could have significant negative impacts. Tourism and Recreation Many of the following findings are based on data and conclusions from the Oregon State University survey (1979) and the Ragatz survey (1985), which is a part of the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study. 1. Central Oregon has a competitive advantage in travel and tourism and the Deschutes River is a unique feature of that advantage, distinguishing it from other Northwest destina- tions. 2. Central Oregon's combination of weather, variety of high- quality recreation resources and supply of good -quality commercial and public development sets it apart in the Northwest market area. 3. Total overnight visitor expenditure in 1984 amounted to $87.2 million, which equates to a total economic impact of about $209 million. 4. Expenditure associated with overnight travel to Deschutes County accounted for 2,400 jobs, not counting additional indirect employment. 5. The significance of the Deschutes River will increase over time as other river resources near population centers become more populated and degraded. 6. About one out of three county residents considers the Deschutes River the most important part of the area's attractiveness. 15 ICJI - Ill 7. Recreation opportunity is the leading reason why almost one- half of county residents located in Deschutes County. 8. County residents oppose trade-offs in fishing (75%), sight- seeing (67%), hiking (66%) and hunting (60%) opportunities for economic growth. 9. Almost nine out of every ten visitors to Deschutes County came for vacation or recreation purposes and consider the Deschutes River one of a number of attractive features. 10. Almost 50 percent of visitors sightsee along the Deschutes River while vacationing in Deschutes County. 11. Twenty-two percent of visitors view wildlife while vacation- ing in Deschutes County. Passive recreation activities, such as hiking, sightseeing and picnicking are the most common. 12. Bend and the Deschutes River rank first and second as places visited while in Deschutes County. 13. All major destination resorts, with the exception of Black Butte Ranch, are located on the Deschutes River. Land Use 1. Undeveloped lands next to streams are the most favored land use (45%) desired by county residents. Most residents (57%) support additional undeveloped lands along rivers in public ownership. 2. Almost eight out of ten county residents support additional efforts by local, state and federal agencies to preserve the stream corridors. 3. Development along the river that incorporates open space into the overall design enhances the value and livability of the area. 4. Public access along rivers and streams for fishing and recreation is limited by private development. 5. The Deschutes River and Squaw Creek offer a unique combina- tion of ponderosa pine and high desert vegetation types. Water quality is exceptionally good. 6. Isolated or small-scale hydroelectric development on the Deschutes River may have an effect on the visitor industry, however, any development that substantially affects the Deschutes River's undeveloped/natural image will limit the degree to which that can be used as an attraction. 16 oz z l Cultural and Historical Resources 1. The Deschutes River corridor figured prominently in the movement and development of native American cultures. 2. The rimrock areas in particular contain a high density of archaeologic sites. 3. Many river and stream corridors have not been inventoried for their archaeologic significance. 4. Land use practices such as homesite development, surface mining, agriculture and logging destroy or disturb evidence of archaeologic sites. 5. Archaeologic sites on private land which lack skeletal remains and that may be essential in adequately interpreting Deschutes River basin prehistory are not protected under state or federal law. 6. Public awareness of our history and cultural background has been and will continue to be an important source of knowl- edge, pride, education and enjoyment for this and future generations.8 7. Rapid growth and development make it imperative that the County's historic and cultural resources be identified and protected.8 8. Lack of private owner incentive for preservation has led to historic site deterioration or loss.8 9. Inventory, assessment and recording of historic and cultural resources is an ongoing process which must be kept current.8 10. Properly preserved and utilized historic and cultural resources enhance the local economy.8 11. There exist state and federal laws which prohibit historic and cultural resources from disturbance or destruction.8 Demographic Findings The demographic findings are the same as the findings contained in the "Area -Wide Economic Consequences" discussion in the document, and are not restated here. 17 AREA -WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Natural resources within Deschutes County function interdepen- dently to provide a system the overall value of which is higher than the sum of the individual components. Prior to making decisions on the land use potential of individual sites, one must first understand what are the basic environmental processes of the entire system. Since the environment is of significant value to the County and its residents, key elements must be preserved or enhanced. The four basic elements that interact to form the basic environ- mental processes are: - Water Supply - Soils - Vegetation - Topography If there is a change in any one of the basic elements from surface mining activity, the change is felt throughout the entire local ecosystem. Changes in water supply may cause aquifer interruption, changes in stream flow and degradation of water quality. Changes in soil characteristics may result in: a direct loss of soil by either removal or erosion; changes in the flora and fauna; changes in moisture content and soil structure; and changes in soil nutrients. Changes in the local vegetation may result in modification of species composition, food value and available cover and density. Changes in topography may result in a removal or change in natural shelters, changes in the microclimate or in the creation of barriers to wildlife. Human presence has probably the most direct effect on the envi- ronmental characteristics. Changes in local land use may result in increased competition between wildlife and livestock and changes in wildlife food sources. Fencing of migration routes may occur and changes could result in wildlife habitat enhance- ment. Of all the changes, the introduction of human presence with the associated noise and disturbance may be one of the most detri- mental impacts associated with surface mines. W. itol 1122 Summary and Analysis From an overall perspective, there should be no significant net adverse environmental impact from the preservation of mineral and aggregate resources in Deschutes County. As indicated earlier in this document, only about five percent of the total land area in the County (96,000 acres) is proposed to be included in the County's mineral and aggregate inventory. Some of that land is in wildlife overlay zones. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has recommended that in identi- fied significant and sensitive habitat areas, only five acres will be in production at any one time. If that recommendation is followed, there is a potential of only 1,500 acres of mineral and aggregate resource land in wildlife areas being mined at any one time. A requirement of limiting mining activities during December 1 through April 30 would also reduce the impacts of mining on the wildlife habitat. Road closure areas also will minimize human disturbance. Findings The Tumalo deer winter range is located west of Bend and extends northwest to just south of the City of Sisters, and contains approximately 57,184 acres. The Paulina deer winter range is located south and east of Bend.8 That portion of the Metolius deer winter range located within Deschutes County lies north of Highway 126 and between Indian Ford and Camp Polk Roads to the west and Lower Bridge Road to the east.8 The Benham Falls elk winter range is located just upstream from Bend along the Deschutes River. These elk are year-round resi- dents, but winter primarily in the Ryan Ranch area immediately downstream from Benham Falls.7 There is a significant deer migration corridor existing between Bend and LaPine that generally follows the Little Deschutes River corridor.7 All riparian zones in Deschutes County have been identified as significant and sensitive wildlife habitat areas. There is significant Golden Eagle nesting habitat located in that area lying north of Highway 20 to the Jefferson County line between the City of Sisters and the Deschutes River. 19 i, U1 ', 112 3 Because of the value of mineral and aggregate resources to the economy, aggregate and mineral removal from the Tumalo winter range should be limited to no more than a five -acre parcel per site which is to be reclaimed while the second five -acre parcel is being mined.11 Aggregate pits should not be operated during the period of December 1 through April 30 so as to minimize the effects upon the wintering deer herds during the most severe parts of the winter. AREA -WIDE ENERGY CONSEQUENCES The major use of energy in Deschutes County, both at present and as expected in the future, is transportation. Economic prin- ciples in the mineral and aggregate industry dictate that these resources be convenient to major transportation routes. Any factors that would limit the use of mineral and aggregate resources near transportation routes and the market would decrease efficiency and increase energy consumption. Summary and Analysis From an overall perspective, there should be no adverse energy consequences from the preservation of mineral and aggregate resources if those resources are located within 15 to 20 miles of consumer market areas and in proximity to transportation corridors. If the sites with these characteristics are not allowed to be mined, the residents of Deschutes County would be forced to pay higher prices for these resources than would otherwise be the case. Findings Mineral and aggregate resources are locationally dependent on the geological and surface characteristics of the County. Economies of scale and bulk weight resources require the development resources in reasonable proximity consumer market areas. 20 of most mineral and aggregate of mineral and aggregate to transportation corridors and 101 " 1124 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Economic Development Services and David Evans and Assoc- iates, Inc., Economic Study of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and Deschutes County; February 1987. 2. Ragatz Associates, Tourism and Recreation in Deschutes County; Economic Benefits and the Role of the Deschutes River. Deschutes County, 1985. 3. Oregon Concrete and Aggregate Producers Association; Richard Angstrom, Managing Director, Personal Communication; January 1989. 4. Lynch, Gary, Supervisor, Mined Land Reclamation Division; Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Letter from Gary Lynch dated October 18, 1988. 5. Deschutes County, Inventory of Mineral and Aggregate Resources in Deschutes County; December 9, 1988. 6. Deschutes County, Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study; April 1986. 7. Deschutes County, Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan; 1980. 8. State of Oregon, Department of Human Resources, Labor Market Information, Labor Trends; September 1977. 9. Deschutes County, LaPine Deer Study, September 1977. 10. Deschutes County, Tumalo Winter Range Study; Inventory and Recommendations for Land Use; June 1977. 11. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, An Environmental Guide to Western Surface Mining, Part Two: Impacts, Mitigation and Monitoring; December 1977. 21 APPENDIX A2 (SITE-SPECIFIC ESEES) AL ioll _" 112G ERRATA SHEET AGGREGATE AMOUNTS The site-specific ESEEs include several references to inventoried aggregate amounts. In some cases, these amounts are incorrectly stated. With respect to the total amount of inventoried aggre- gate, figures in the ESEE documents concerning aggregate mate- rials should be based upon a total of 63,663,000 cubic yards, including crushable rock. When added to the amounts found within the Bend urban growth boundary, which appears to total a maximum of 20,000,000 cubic yards, the total resource equals 83,663,000 cubic yards. It should be noted that this 20,000,000 cubic yard figure has not been tested in this inventory process and may be inflated. The site-specific ESEEs making determinations on aggregate sites also make reference to the total amount of aggregate, including crushable rock, zoned surface mining during the ESEE process. In some cases, those amounts of incorrectly stated. The total amount of aggregate, including crushable rock, should be stated as 45,197,000 cubic yards. WILDLIFE CONDITIONS The ESEE on some of the sites refer to wildlife conditions as set forth by DEQ or reference a winter closure from October 31 to March 31. In such instances, the conditions referring to wild- life protection should read as follows: "Wildlife conditions as set forth in the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife letter dated August 10, 1989, recommending this site for deer winter range and spe- cial wildlife consideration." 01"1"." `Z .L 10`. 1127 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 252 Site Number 252, occupying tax lot 4700 in Township 15 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 16, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 252 comprises approximately 160 acres and is located on the northwest flank of Cline Butte, approximately three-quarters mile south of Highway 126. The site is owned by Eva Thornburg and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-40. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 L [ l -^ '1123 ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 2.5 million cubic yards of quarry rock which meets ODOT specifications for quality for road construction purposes. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is has been mined since 1952 as a quarry rock site. The site is located on the northwest flank of Cline Butte and accesses along Hall Road off of Cline Falls Road. Currently, there is approximately five acres of excavation and the remainder of the site is vegetated with natural juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. All area within one-half mile of the site is natural range land, most of which is owned by the subject property owner. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The scenic values of the site are limited to views from Highway 126 and Cline Falls Road. No special scenic values have been desig- nated for the site. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-40 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the EFU-40 would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and (4) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. However, due to the large lot sizes in the area, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. The Board finds that most of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership or under the control of the subject property owner. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, riparian areas, fish resources, and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with 3 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 252 ,, �,-; �.� a 01 11:30 others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 126 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic as- sociated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 126. Protection of Natural 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 'I - 1132 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consecuences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the Highway 126 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 126 corridor for highway maintenance. There- fore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of the this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 0-1 � 1134 patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations; the owner has indicated that that would not be a problem in this case. Protection of sur- rounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 ,<. ��=�► � J.135 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and in- creasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 126 and surrounding County roads would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 126. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 'U1 - 113E of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 I. iol - 1133 existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 252 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 16. 20. 21. 22. 01 - 1139 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #252 COVER INFORMATION SHEET MAP GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/9/88 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/18/88 LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 3/11/87 MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 3/11/87 LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 3/2/87 LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 12/18/84 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 12/18/84 LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 5/7/84 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/16/83 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/20/83 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/26/82 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/2/82 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/2/82 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/27/81 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 10/28/83 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 2/26/80 LETTER FROM EMMA M. KEMP DATED 1/23/78 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 2/15/77 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/4/77 LIST OF NAMES & ADDRESSES 1 io,i -, 1140 23. MEMO FROM MID OREGON CRUSHING ON PARCEL 24. MEMO FROM MID OREGON CRUSHING ON PARCEL 1/11/78 25. LETTER FROM THORNBURGH'S TO COUNTY 7/5/88 26. QUARRY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 27. QUARRY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1973 28. DOGAMI GRANT OF EXEMPTION APPLICATION 9/8/88 29. REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION 2/18/88 30. QUANTITY ESTIMATE FROM OWNERS 10/31/88 31. COMPUTERIZED INVENTORY SHEET 11/18/88 32. APPRAISERS REPORT & STAFF REPORT 2/9/89 33. GRAVEL OPERATION FILE 1973 & 1974 34. NOTICE LIST 35. NOTIFICATION MAPS 36. MYLAR OF TOPO 37. LETTER FROM DESCH. COUNTY 10/20/88 238. PPL`A_NN1I"N�G COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1'1P�(A ��, �� t7h („�MrY+�`�S�G'1QfiS G+LCiSiD`1 YYl �n�:�lS 2 _rQ -� 1141 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 246 Site Number 246, occupying tax lots 205, 207, 208, 300, 302 and 303, in Township 15 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Sections 3, 9 and 10, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a prelim- inary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 246 comprises approximately 10 acres and is located along Squaw Creek just east of Sisters. The site is owned by Gary Tewalt and is currently zoned FP. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and RR -10. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report from an appraiser hired by the County to describe the site and its surroundings was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 11 toi 1142 During the ESEE hearings, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Bill Dugan, a neighbor of the proposed site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. In addition to documents generated for this Goal 5 process, the file includes materials concerning applications for fill and removal permits for flood control projects at the site. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 10,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 246 runs along Squaw Creek just east of Sisters. The site is located primarily within the creekbed. The creek bed is 5 to 10 feet lower than the surrounding topography. It appears that the site crosses the property lines of several property owners along the stream. The site has previously been the site of gravel excavation under a fill and removal permit. The purpose of those earlier extractions was to prevent flooding along the banks of Squaw Creek. On both sides of the creek are suburban residential proper- ties. These properties have views of the creek. Within a half mile are similar residential properties. McKinney Butte is a half mile to the north of the site and the Sisters State Park is within a half mile upstream of the site. The town of Sisters is within a half mile to the west of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, the resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan lists Squaw Creek as having Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout. ODFW has identified this area as having native wild trout habitat. The County Comprehensive Plan calls for the County to support efforts by ODFW to manage appropriate reaches of rivers and streams. Fish habitat in this area is limited by low or non-existent summer flows. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 C)J2AQ s } -, 1143 2. Open space and scenic values. The County Comprehensive Plan calls for the inclusion of areas along Squaw Creek in the LM zone, which would protect scenic values 200 feet back from the river. The inventoried deposit in this case includes the beds and banks of Squaw Creek. 3. Riparian habitat. The resource element of the County Comprehensive Plan identifies this area along Squaw Creek as having sensitive riparian habitat. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of vegetation, excavation of the streambed, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences and processing facilities and fugitive dust emissions. 2. Impacts on deer would be primarily increased noise and human presence and the effect would generally be to cause deer to avoid such areas. 3. Impacts on fish resources could include increased turbidity and siltation resulting in loss of food sources, loss of spawning habitat, increased water temperatures and general loss of habitat and cover due to destruction of the streambed and loss of streamside vegetation. These impacts would be lessened by the fact that the stream is intermittent and dry during the summer months. The Board finds that fish and wildlife and riparian habitat and scenic values along the creek conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat and riparian areas and scenic resour- ces, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust, increased human pre- sence, and water quality impacts as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust and physi- cal scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact fish and wildlife and their habitat and scenic values. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 and RR -10 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses, except motorcycle tracks, utility facilities, feedlots, landfills, other mining activities, personal use landing strips, and forest product processing are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. Because of the disposition of this matter with the respect to Goal 5 conflicts, the Board finds that it need not address land use conflicts any further. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. The site is not likely to attract visi- tors, given that it is bounded by private property. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on riparian fish and wildlife habitat and exacerbate a visual disturbance in the landscape. The social consequences of reduced wildlife viewing opportun- ities and affected scenery would be felt primarily by neighboring residents. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on riparian fish and wildlife habitat and scenery along the creek. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remain- ing forage and cover. Wildlife would avoid the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 -' 01 - 114 5 in other areas for these resources. Because of the nature of the site, excavation would take place in the streambed itself. There would be no possibility of moving the opera- tions outside of the streambank to protect possible fish habitat and other riparian values. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Given the limited amount of material at the site and its thin distribution along a creekbed, it would most likely be more energy efficient to mine other sites. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of riparian habitat and fish and wildlife resources and scenic qualities would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site is the smallest quantity site on the inventory and that not allowing mining 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 01 - 114G on the site would have no significant impact on the County's ability to reach its needs. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at aggregate sites could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. Given the small quantity of material at this site, it is unlikely that failure to allow mining at the site would have any impact in this respect. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the Goal 5 resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of topography and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of those resources. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, riparian habitat and fish and wildlife resources are limited by locational factors. 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would not have negative energy consequences. The site has a small amount of aggre- gate thinly distributed. There are other sites with much larger and more concentrated deposits that can help meet the County's needs. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the ESEE consequences, the Board finds that the Goal 5 resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. The County bases this decision on the following: (a) Although aggregate is in short supply in the County, this site represents a minuscule amount of the total aggregate needs of the County. (b) By its decision on other sites, the County has pre- served a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. These amounts are sufficient to meet the County's needs over the planning period. Within a five -mile radius of this 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 T14 site, the Board has in those decisions preserved at least 1.4 million cubic yards of aggregate materials. (d) The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, as amended by the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study gives great weight to protection of natural values in ripar- ian areas such as this one. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and that the present zoning for the site will be retained. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 246 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #246 :11413 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. MAP 4. MAP 5• CERTIFIED LETTER TO MR. GARY TEWALT DATED 8-19-87 6• CERTIFIED LETTER TO MR. GARY TEWALT DATED 4-8-87 7. PERMIT #3384 RENEWAL DATED 12-13-85 8• SAME AS ABOVE #7 9• APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OR FILL PERMIT DATED 2/9/81 10. PROPOSED USE INFORMATION SHEET 11. LETTER FROM IRA J. TROWBRIDGE DATED 5/20/80 12. PACKAGE OF PHOTOS 13. STAFF REPORT, ERATA SHEET AND ADDENDUM TO REPORT 14. COMPUTERIZED INVENTORY SHEET 15. NOTIFICATION MAPS 16. NOTIFICATION LIST 17. MYLAR OF TOPO. 18. LETTER TO MR. TEWALT DATED 6-19-89 19• LETTER FROM MR. DUGAN RECEIVED 8-8-89 20. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 21. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEARING MINUTES 22• BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECISION MINUTES 23. LETTER FROM ODFW 9-10-89 L Cil - 1149 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 248 Site Number 248, occupying a portion of tax lot 100 in Township 15 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 248 comprises approximately 120 acres and is located on Slayton Road one-quarter mile south of Highway 126 between Sisters and Redmond. The site.is owned by Keith Cyrus and is zoned SM and SMR. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU 40, LM, and EFU 20. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the econo- mic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 101 1150 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventorv. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 3.2 million cubic yards of cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located southwest of the intersection of the Redmond -Sisters Highway and Slayton Road. Access to the mining area is off the highway, roughly one-quarter mile west of the intersection. The site is level on the north and south ends. In the middle section, there are two small buttes, which is where the mining operation is located. There is a large area of cinder exca- vation along the west side of the site, in the middle area. The butte is slowly being removed to the level of the adja- cent field to the north. The west edge of the excavation appears to be a vertical wall. Directly to the east of the site is a farmed acreage. To the north is an undeveloped subdivision. Within one-half mile of the site are residential acreage properties, vacant land and farms. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route, with medium frequency of use, and medium use by sensitive raptors. 2. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent EFU 20 and EFU 40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 i0.1 - 1151 (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. This site is in plain view of Highway 126. (2) Impacts on deer would include further destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by continued surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and continued human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. (3) Impacts on raptor use would include destruction of cover for the raptors and displacement and destruction of food sources, increased human presence and noise, all of which would tend to drive raptors away from the immediate area. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10, MUA-10, EFU-20 and EFU-40 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 j () '1 - '1152 Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the EFU-80 zone would include: (1) At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. (2) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are a couple of mobile homes within close proximity to the site. There is an undeveloped subdivision nearby, but it is not possible to predict to what extent it is likely to be developed. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 0l 1153 already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling on Highway 126 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 612'5 I part of the reclamation process. There is evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 126 and Highway 20, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway main- tenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufa- cturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Des- chutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 255 101 " 1155 economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads, and that they serve as a sub- stitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect ag- gregate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: (a) This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. (b) Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource; this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. (c) This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highways 20 and 126. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 ,ti (d) This site is already in existence. (e) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (f) Highway 126 is the main highway between the cities of Sisters and Redmond and site 248 is readily visible from the highway. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 in the zone. Furthermore, use, and after reclamation become available for other L0,1 1157 surface mining is a transitional the land surface would then uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 L01111 - 1158 land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and in- creasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater distan- ces. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aa_Qregate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic and personal commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 io'l -, 1159 private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; (d) Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; (e) Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; (f) New excavation shall be sloped at a rate of 2 to 1; and (g) The site shall be fenced off from adjoining properties with safety fencing. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 Al l - 1160 the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advan- ces the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 I.: 01, - 1161 (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 248 5YI(,. 113 tr A TAB I,E OF CON -TENTS 1 (-/ S, ' SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: l � 1 1 L,U 2 r l 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Cover information sheet 3 - Map 4 -Map 5 - Maps 6 - Map 7 -Map 8 - Letter from John D. Beaulieu dated 7/14/87 9 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 9/29/86 10 - Mined Land Reclamation Permit issued 7/1/86 11 - Surface Mining Operating Permit issued 6/25/85 12 - Findings & Decisions dated 2/19/85 13 - Surface Mining Operating Permit issued 2/6/85 14 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 1/9/85 15 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 7/27/84 16 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 7/7/83 17 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 5/24/82 18 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 6/3/81 19 - Findings & Decision dated 6/26/80 20 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 5/16/80 21 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 4/28/80 GROUP A 22 - Ordinance #80-215 23 - Map 24 - Ordinance #80-215 25 - Memo dated 10/16/80 26 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 10/14/80 27 - Findings & Decision dated 8/29/80 28 - Deschutes County Planning Dept_ dated 7/9/?,) " f x TABLE OF CONTENTS SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: (page 2) 0 6 J 29 - Vicinity Information sheet 30 - Staff Report dated 5/27/80 31 - Same as above #30 32 - Same as above #30 33 - Findings & Decision (page 1 only) 34 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 5/17/80 35 - Look up sheets 36 - Application review file sheet 37 - Letter from Charles Trachsel dated 5/13/80 38 - Memo dated 5/7/80 39 - Revised Transmittal Letter for Zone Changes dated 4/30/80 40 - Zone Change Application dated 4/29/80 41 - Application review file sheet 42 - Mailing list for Site Plan Transmittals 43 - Zone Change information (Page 2 & 3) 44 - Map GROUP B 45 - Ordinance #80-212 46 - Memo dated 10/16/80 47 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 10/15/80 48 - Deschutes County Planning Dept. dated 7/9/80 49 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 7/9/80 50 - Staff Report dated 5/27/80 51 - Same as above #50 52 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 5/27/80 53 - Notice of Public Hearing (no date listed) 54 - Letter from Charles Trachsel dated 5/13/80 55 - Look up sheets 56 - Look up sheets 57 - Revised Transmit --al Letter for Zon= Changes dated 4/3230 TABLE OF CONTENTS SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: (Page 3) b 0 � � .1 1 1 L�V 4 � �,d 58 - Zone Change Application dated 4/29/80 59 - Application review file sheet 60 - Application review file sheet 61 - Memo dated 5/7/80 62 - Mailing List for Site Plan Transmittals 63 - Map 64 - Zone C::ange information (page 2 and 3) GROUP C 65 - Findings & Decision dated 2/19/85 66 - Site Plan Application dated 1/23/85 67 - Application review file sheet 68 - Site Plan Transmittal Letter dated 1/23/84 69 - Reclamation Plan Guideline & Format sheet 70 - Look up sheets 71 - Mailing list 72 - Maps 73 Vo4q kw�t R�clo..nno.}�vH pz v.�wi� 1—lo S$ 14 Go U}" i S,,o�r Nti win Tvt 7Z- ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 249 Site Number 249, occupying tax lots 2502 and 2505 in Town- ship 15, Range 10, Section 25, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of mineral and aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board deter- mines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 249 comprises approximately 12 acres and is located on Highway 20 approximately five miles southeast of Sisters. The site is owned by R. L. Coats and is currently zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned MUA-10 and EFU-20. This site was identified as containing rock resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the rock resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000 and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's mineral and aggregate resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identi- fied conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evalu- ated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, pro- tecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and three neighboring property owners. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 L011 -, I166 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes the contents of a 1977 conditional use application for earlier land use approval for mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 250,000 cubic yards of rock meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located on the south side of Highway 20 West, just east of Peterson Ridge Road. The area is roughly 5.5 miles southeast of Sisters and one- half mile west of Cloverdale Road. Access onto the site is a small road off the highway. The site is basically level with a slight slope down to the north. The site has highway frontage and appears to be natural along he western side. There are two sand/gravel pits on the site. The north pit is just off he highway and is highly visible from the highway. The second pit is further south, towards the middle of the site. The second pit is larger than the north pit. There is a small canal which winds through the property between the pits. The northeast area of the site is naturally vegetated. No improvements or utilities are located on the site. The area around the site is primarily rural residential land with many of the sites improved with average to good quality homes and mobile homes. The site appears to be within the Blue Chip Ranch subdivision. The sites surrounding the subject are primarily vacant at this time, with a few homes within a half -mile of the subject property. There is a residential acreage on the north side of the highway, oppo- site the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. 2. Scenic Values. The LM zoning designation shows a concern for protection of scenic values along Highway 20. Highway 20 offers scenic views of the Cascades in this area. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic values conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 '01 1167 impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the MUA-10 and EFU-20 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protec- tion of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses only in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. There was testimony at the hearing that there are two Arabian horse ranches in the area, although it was not specified how close they were to the site. The Board finds that the only conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses currently existing at the site or within the impact area area couple of residences. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 -L f..? '9. " 1 16 8 who would be attracted to the area to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and visually disturb the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those tra- velling Highway 20 who would be deprived of possible wild- life viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic as- sociated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Rock and aggregate are resources that are needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construc- tion and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Mr. Coats testified that this site is only used on highway jobs in the immediate area. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preser- ving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and con- struction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20. In this case, the primary economic consequence of failure to zone the site would be increased costs of hauling rock and aggregate sources to nearby highway jobs. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 1 1 7 0 streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the rock resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally dependent. Rock resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the rock resources along the Highway 20 corri- dor for highway maintenance. Deer habitat is continually being lost to new development. The site lies in a scenic view corridor of the Cascades along a heavily travelled road. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660- 16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 L0,11 1111 properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. In this case, there is little developed resi- dential property to be affected in any event. The site already has an existing mine. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, there is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development, personal landing strips, ore smelters, land- fills and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate and rock needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate and rock site takes on importance, as cumula- tively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 soi - 1173 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to the occupation and development of individual parcels of private property with economic value and quality of life and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting land uses. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the rock resource at this site. The Board finds that there is sufficient land available in the County where potential conflicting uses could be sited. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Wildlife restrictions as set forth in the ODFW letter of August 10, 1989. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 '01 - 1174 Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 • Loll 11 1J applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile only upon demonstration that the use will not cause an adjacent mine to violate DEQ standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the rock resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate and rock sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surround- ing conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 249 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. a 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 4dvw Io'l 1176 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #249 COVER INFORMATION SHEET COVER INFORMATION SHEET MAP MAP MAP GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/14/87 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/30/86 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/18/85 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/13/83 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/19/78 LETTER FROM JOSEPHINE & WILLIAM PIERCE DATED 3/3/77 LETTER FROM NANCY M. HALUS DATED 2/23/77 PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT DATED 2/9/77 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 2/9/77 LETTER FROM CARL M. WILLIAMS DATED 2/8/77 LETTER FROM PAUL STAEDELI DATED 2/7/77 LETTER FROM ANNA M. & JOHN W. SCOTT DATED 2/5/77 TELEGRAM FROM JAMES & ANGELA PHILPIN DATED 2/7/77 LETTER FROM JOSEPHINE & WILLIAM PIERCE DATED 2/3/77 LETTER FROM ROBERT E. EMERSON DATED 2/3/77 INFORMATION MAILED 1/28/77 TO ROBERT COATS CHECK LIST FOR NOTIFICATION MAPS 1 V 23. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE 24. NOTICE --OF CHANGE IN ASSESSED VALUATION 25. LETTER FROM R.L. COATS DATED 4/27/69 26. COMPUTERIZED SURFACE MINING INVENTORY SHEETS 27. APPRAISERS SHEET/STAFF REPORT 28. NOTIFICATION MAPS 29. NOTIFICATION LISTS 30. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 31. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 33 i'.x�r�1 c� Coenm�sic�+_erS <J,? ion m(nutc�� �y Bc),-Ai-6 C�mm���„crx! cS Yr?a�l rh'�nv-mss 2 ESEE Findings and Decision Site Nos. 251/278 Site Numbers 251 and 278, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989 and August 7, 1989 respectively. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies those preliminary decisions. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 251, occupying tax lot 1400 in Township 15, Range 12, Section 11 and tax lot 800 in Township 15, Range 12, Section 14 comprises approximately 25 acres and is located on Highway 126 where it intersects the Deschutes River. The site is owned by William Cherry and is currently zoned SM and LM. Site number 278, located immediately to the west of site number 251 and also abutting the Highway 126 corridor and the Deschutes River, occupies tax lot 901 in Township 15, Range 12, Section 14 and tax lot 1200 in Township 15, Range 12, Section 1200 and totals 12.18 acres. The site is owned by the State Department of Transportation. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report from an appraiser hired by the County to describe the site and its surroundings was entered into the record. During the ESEE hearings on these sites, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Coalition for the Deschutes, a representative of the Oregon Natural Resources Council, and a number of neighbors opposed to mining at the site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. In addition to documents generated for this Goal 5 process, the file includes materials concerning applications for fill and removal permits for flood control projects at the site. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that these sites have the following ag- gregate resources on their respective sites: Site 251 - 125,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate; Site 278 - 18,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. These sites are located along Highway 126 roughly 3.5 miles west of Redmond. Site 251 runs north between the Highway on the South to a bend in the Deschutes River. The western edge of the site sits on a gravel bench above the Deschutes River. The eastern area of the site is the edge of the river canyon and level farm land on top of the rimrock (at the far east of the site). The site has been mined previously, but the level of activity at the site is unknown. It appears from DOGAMI information that no use of the site has been made since at least 1979. The Deschutes River forms the northern border for this site. The site is primarily naturally vegetated, except where there has been mining and where there is a dilapidated home at the southern end of the property. The prior mining area covers approximately 1/2 of the site. Site 278 is adjacent to the Highway 126 right-of-way just to the west of site 251. The Deschutes River runs along the length of the western edge of the property to within under 50 feet. The site is slightly above the level of the Deschutes River on the southerly end, and is at a higher 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 10 It 1180 elevation at the northern end, as the river gradient drops away at this point. To the north is another property that cuts off access to the Deschutes River. The site is primar- ily naturally vegetated, except where there has been mining in the past. In the mined areas, the natural vegetation is coming back after reclamation. A representative of the Oregon Department of Transportation testified that there was sufficient sand and gravel left for one more highway job. The site has not been used since before 1970. To the north and east of these sites along the river are residential acreage homes along the rimrock. To the south is the Redmond -Sisters Highway and residential acreages. Cline Falls State Park is on the South side of the Highway along the river. On the opposite side of the river to the west is Eagle Drive. The site is highly visible from Eagle Drive and the homes off Eagle Drive, which overlook the Canyon. The site is also visible from Highway 126. The Deschutes River immediately adjacent to this site has historically had public use. The Cline Falls State Park property to the south of the site gives public access to the river canyon. In addition, the right of way for the his- toric Cline Falls Bridge, located directly to the west of the property gives public access to the River. This area constitutes one of the few easily accessible public access points to the Deschutes River north of Tumalo State Park. The river adjacent to this site is very narrow, slow moving, and deep, making for good swimming holes. The River has been diverted and dammed at the site at the historic Cline Falls powerhouse. There is a historic fish ladder on the east side of the falls. Upstream and down- stream from the dam, the river has been designated a state scenic waterway. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, ODFW has identified this area as having medium sensitive golden eagle use. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study (adopted as part of the comprehensive plan) identifies golden eagles as being a sensitive species in the County and notes that one of 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 101 - 1181 two golden eagle nests in the County is in the Deschutes Canyon downstream from Bend. In addition, the resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan lists the Deschutes River as having Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout. The County Comprehen- sive Plan calls for the County to support efforts by ODFW to manage appropriate reaches of rivers and streams. 2. Open space and scenic values. The County Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Zoning ordinance includes areas along the Deschutes River in the LM zone, which would protect scenic values 200 feet back from the river. This would apply primarily on site 251, since site 278 is further than 200 feet from the river for the most part. In addition, the LM zone applies to the sites due to their location along the Sisters -Redmond highway for 1/4 mile back from the highway. The purpose of such zoning is to protect the scenery visible from highway. The LM zone in this application includes the entirety of both sites. 3. Riparian habitat. The resource element of the County Comprehensive Plan identifies the area along the banks of the Deschutes River as being a sensitive riparian area. Riparian habitat has value for wildlife that use it for a forage and water source. Wildlife such as deer from adjacent areas may come to the area during the nighttime hours for water. In addition, riparian areas are important for fish. Site 251 includes riparian habitat along the river. The riparian area is narrow because of the cliffs along the river. Site 278 does not extend to the riparian area, since that sliver of land is in other ownership; however, it is close enough that activities on the site can affect the riparian area. 4. Scenic waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River is in the State Scenic Waterway program, except for the portion where the Cline Falls dam is sited. Such designation includes a 1/4 mile corridor on each side of the river upstream and downstream from the dam. The Board finds that these sites fall entirely within the scenic waterway. State scenic waterway designation is based on a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, historic, archeological, recreational and outdoor values. It appears from information in the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River Study 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 101 - 1182 that the outstanding attributes of the River in this segment would be recreational, scenic, and historic. Because of public access at the site, the river cor- ridor has a great deal of recreational use in this area. The adjacent state park and Highway 126 give the river additional scenic importance in this area. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz Study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportion of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. A survey of Deschutes County households established that 41.3% of resident househol- ds in Deschutes County make use of State Parks along the River north of Bend. The scenic and recreational values of the river at this point are enhanced by the abundant wildlife visible to visitors of the site. The Board finds based upon the testimony of a neighbor to the site that there are red- tailed hawks, blue heron, turkey vultures, and ducks that make use of this site, as well as the golden eagle mentioned by ODFW. 5. Historic and cultural resources. The staff report refers to the fact that the Deschutes Canyon was a transportation corridor for Native Americans travelling through Central Oregon. The River Study identified no cultural sites for these two sites. The river study does list two historic sites nearby these sites, the Cline Falls Bridge and the fish ladder at the Cline Falls dam. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and the testimony at the ESEE hearings, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space, scenic, and recreational values would be adversely affected by the removal of additional vegeta- tion and further excavation of the surface, the presen- ce of machinery at the site, and the noise and fugitive dust associated with mining activities. There was testimony at the hearing that the areas of the Des- chutes Canyon adjacent to this site are used by the public for swimming and other public uses. Users of the adjacent Cline Falls State Park would be disturbed by the noise and dust associated with surface mining. In addition, the truck traffic associated with surface 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 Ul -, 1183 mining at the sites would pose a danger for users of the State Park. (2) The noise associated with surface mining would adverse- ly impact on the golden eagle use of the area. Any use of the area by deer would likewise be impacted by the noise, dust, and truck traffic, as set forth in the staff report. Besides impacting the wildlife directly, such impacts would have an indirect effect on the public's enjoyment of open space, scenic, and recrea- tional values, due to the absence of wildlife viewing opportunities. (3) Although mining would take place up on the benches above the river, mining operations could adversely affect riparian habitat and fish resources through debris coming to rest in riparian zones and possible uncontrolled surface drainage, leading to increased sedimentation in the stream, further affecting fish spawning habitat and fish food sources. (4) Historic resources would probably not be impacted since they are not directly on the site. However, those coming to look at the historic sites would have their experiences marred by the noise, dust, and traffic associated with surface mining. The Board finds that fish and wildlife, riparian habitat and scenic values along the River conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat and riparian areas and scenic resour- ces, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust, increased human pre- sence, and water quality impacts as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact wildlife and their habitat. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 and EFU-40 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses, except motorcycle tracks, utility facilities, feedlots, landfills, other mining activities, personal use landing strips, and forest product processing are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 LU -1 �" 1184 uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. Because of its disposition of this matter on the basis of Goal 5 conflicts, the Board finds that it need not address land use conflicts any further. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. Because of the adjacent Cline Falls State Park, the site is likely to attract visitors. Recreation is taking increasing importance in the Deschutes County econ- omy; therefore, the indirect economic effects of surface mining could increase over time. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on scenic, wildlife, open space and recreational values as set forth above. Because of the public uses in the canyon nearby, these impacts could be substantial. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on the fish and wildlife and sensitive riparian habitat at the site. Surface mining activities would increase noise and traffic and reduce the available cover and forage at the site. In addition, noise could cause other wildlife such as golden eagles to avoid the site. Wildlife would be forced to leave the area adding more competition in other habitat areas. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortal- ity rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highway 126. 011 1185 the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the B well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 126 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 would result in increased costs for maintenance and con- struction on Highway 126. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of riparian and fish and wildlife resources and public open space and scenic values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the Highway 126 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances to nearby highway maintenance jobs. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the consequences, the Board finds that the wildlife resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. The facts supporting the Board's decision include the following: (a) Although aggregate is in short supply in the County, these sites represent a small percentage of the total aggregate in the County. Site 251 in particular at 18,000 cubic yards does not represent a great loss to the total supply. Furthermore, neither site has been 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 s -1 U I - 118 r' used in a long time, further testimony to their lack of overall importance. (b) By its decision on other sites, the County has pre- served a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. (c) The County has preserved at least 2 million cubic yards at sites 275, 322 and 461, all of which are within 10- 15 miles of this site by road. All of these sites have a greater quantity of aggregate material than do these combined sites. (d) The area is one of the few areas along the Deschutes River easily accessible to the public and is heavily used by the public. The site is valued by the public for its scenic and recreational resources. (e) The site represents one of only nine identified golden eagle areas in the County's comprehensive plan. In addition, deer habitat is continually shrinking due to increased development in the County's rural areas. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting scenic, open space and fish and wildlife habitat and resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and that present surface mining zoning for the site will be removed and replaced with more appropriate zoning to be determined at a later date. Furthermore, the Board will encourage the addition of the State Highway site to Cline Falls State Park. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 251/278 P1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. zo. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #251 COVER INFORMATION SHEET MAPS LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHEET GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/13/85 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/14/83 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/6/81 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/17/80 LETTER FROM WILLIAM CHERRY TO COUNTY APPRAISERS SHEET & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAPS NOTIFICATION LISTS COMPUTERIZED INVENTORY LISTS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MYLAR OF TOPO MAP ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES LETTER FROM JAN ERNST; ODOT PARKS & REC DIVISION 8/15/89 lc#a iom p-Dp.W 5 heck �i � nig � u#iS �x�3cZ1 0b Cbmm%6sione,5 Ciecas�on mina s r 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. to . 1. iol - 1189 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #278 INVENTORY SHEET NOTIFICATION MAPS APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORTS LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Morn 0)> V --4W q- io-,aq 0b Lomm i 56-1,10 MCI$ heae, �cj m � n u.�S AL1 66 Corn m*e;oSlo,ner 5 ciec:iscn n m i ncc.s • 1 2 3 4 i. 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • 26 Page OI - 1190 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF THE ) DETERMINATION OF THE ) ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL,) FINDINGS AND DECISION ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC ) CONSEQUENCES OF THE ) USE OF INVENTORY SITE ) NO. 271 (LIVESAY RD.) ) FOR SURFACE MINING. ) The Livesay Road site, also described as Tax ID No. 151036 800, Deschutes County Assessor's Office came before the Board of Commissioners for hearing on May 18, 1989. The Board continued the matter until June 7, 1989 to make a tentative decision. By adoption of these findings and decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that tentative decision this date. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, which was placed in the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or "Surface Mining." For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS The Livesay Road site comprises 240 acres and is located southwest of Harrington Loop, 1/2 mile west of Plainview Road, and is owned by Deschutes County. Livesay Road runs through the site, which is currently zoned SMR and WA and is designated for Agricultural, Surface Mining Reserve, Forest and Surface Mining, and Wildlife Area Combining Zone on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Adjacent property is zoned MUA 10, EFU 20, 1 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 • 1 F2 and SM. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page HEARING AND EXHIBITS A hearing on the proposal to classify the subject site for surface mining use was held before the Deschutes County Planning Commission on February 22, 1989. A de novo hearing was held before the Board of Commissioners on May 18, 1989. The Board had before it the record and minutes of the Planning Commission and also reviewed the list of Exhibits set forth in Exhibit "A" to these findings and decision. There were no prehearing contacts on this matter by Board members, no conflicts declared by Board members, and there were no other challenges to participation by Board members. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, and its implementing administrative rule, OAR 660-16-000 to 025. Because the subject site has already been included on the inventory of aggregate materials, no discussion of the quantity, quality and location of such materials is necessary. The Board adopts and believes the material in the surface mining inventory regarding this site, which contains approximately two million cubic yards of aggregate material. The staff report before the Planning Commission and this Board, which the Board believes, determines that there are conflicts between surface mining use on the one hand, and other Goal 5 uses on the other hand. The Board's decision is thus limited to determining a program to achieve compliance of the 2 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD)`;; MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law ^_000 One Ma, Attorneys Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 .r 1 2 3 4 • • 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 1192 County's Comprehensive Plan with Goal 5 under OAR 660-16-010. The Board does not reach the issue of conflicts between surface mining use of the subject site and uses not set forth in Goal 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Identification of Goal 5 Resources and Conflicts -- The Board believes, based on the staff report and the testimony of * * received at the May 18, 1989 hearing, that the following Goal 5 resources, previously identified in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, are conflicting uses with surface mining: open space, wildlife, and scenic values. Staff Report at 1. The Board further believes that human presence and noise, dust, and traffic are each specific conflicts between the aforementioned Goal 5 resources and surface mining, as set forth at pp. 2-5 of the staff report. 2. Dust -- The Board believes the testimony of Jack Myer, a registered professional engineer with 40 years experience in his profession, and Gary Hampton, a meterologist, which stated that the dust generated from this site was a fine substance which can travel great distances in the prevailing westerly winds. See Ex. 11. The Board also believes the testimony of Stosh Thompson regarding the adverse effects of dust on wildlife. The Board finds that dust generated at this site, even if limited to periods in which human activity is permitted in the Tumalo Deer Winter Range, an area which includes the subject site, occurs at times in which the area's greatest asset, i.e. its scenic beauty, 3 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD)`�4� MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Low 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221 -101 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • 26 Page 101 - 1193 is to be enjoyed by tourists. Scenic beauty and open space are given great value in the County Comprehensive Plan and the Board concludes that allowing surface mining would conflict with those values to the extent that it would be impossible to conserve such beauty and open space. Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that open space and scenic values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. A timber zone, which carries out the open space and scenic views portions of the County plan is determined by this Board to be a better means of carrying out Goal 5 and its administrative rule and the County Comprehensive Plan than designation of the site for surface mining. 3. Transportation -- In the site specific discussion of this site at p. 4 of the staff report, it is stated that only sporadic use would be made of this site. The Board believes the testimony of Mr. Rice, its Public Works Director, that 700 round truck trips would be generated by the use of the site for surface mining. The Board finds it unlikely as well that a 25 mile per hour speed limit could be imposed effectively under current and forseeable staffing levels and priorities of the Sheriff's Department. The Board finds that, in any event, use of the site could not be made during the closed season of the Tumalo Deer Winter 4 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221 -101 1 1194 1 Range, which is currently between November and March each year. 2 The Board also finds that, based on the testimony of Jim Behrens, 3 the local Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW") 4 Biologist, that there may be a need for an extension of the 5 closed season for one month on either side of the present closed 6 season. The Board further finds that the remaining months of the 7 year are the period in which the greatest number of tourists come 8 to the Bend -Sisters area and that unacceptable levels of 9 conflicts between trucks and other vehicles using the mining site 10 and tourist vehicles would occur. The Board believes and 11 accepts the testimony of Mr. Scott that the use of adjacent roads 12 by trucks and other vehicles using this site would have a • 13 deleterious effect on the local transportation system. 14 Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values 15 and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the 16 Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that open 17 space and scenic values should be used fully, to the detriment of 18 the use of the aggregate resource. 19 4. Human Presence and Noise -- The Board rejects the site 20 specific portions of the staff report (p. 5) which relate to 21 wildlife. The Board believes the testimony of Mr. Scott, who 22 testified as to the equipment typically used in a surface mining 23 operation of the nature of proposed on the subject site, which 24 would include trucks, loaders, grizzlies and crushers. 25 •26 The Board also believes the one witness who was qualified to testify as to noise impacts, Albert G. Duble Jr., an Oregon Page _ 5 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) (),��) 1142 MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 i 1 registered acoustical engineer. The Board further finds that the 2 applicant's engineer, Mr. Herbert, was not so qualified and 3 disbelieves his testimony. The Board finds that Mr. Duble 4 conducted a study of this site and presented a report (Ex. ) 5 to the Board on his findings and conclusions. 6 Mr. Duble found that aggregate mining on this site would 7 raise the ambient noise level more than 10 db, in violation of 8 OAR 340-35-035. Mr. Duble also stated that, in view of the 9 prevailing winds, it was unlikely any berms would be able to 10 reduce noise levels by more than 5 db. The Board believes and 11 accepts Mr. Duble's study and his testimony. 12 The Board also accepts and believes the testimony of Dr. • 13 Stosh Thompson, who holds a Masters in Biology and a Doctorate in 14 Zoology, and is the author of the report on which ODFW determined 15 to close the Tumalo Deer Winter Range for certain months. Dr. 16 Thompson operates a wildlife sanctuary in the area and testified, 17 and the Board believes, that the use of the subject site for 18 surface mining would conflict with the wildlife use of that site 19 and adjacent areas within the Winter Range. The Board also 20 believes the written and oral testimony to the same effect by 21 Kathy Miller and Mike Steele. 22 Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values 23 and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the 24 Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that 25 wildlife values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use 26 of the aggregate resource. Page (f j{' 1 � .+w. 6 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 S • 1 5. Economic Consequences -- The Board finds, on the basis of 2 Ex. , the map of aggregate sites available on federal lands, 3 and Ex. the letter from the United States Forest Service to 4 , dated 1989, that there are 5 other available sources of aggregate in the Bend -Sisters area for 6 the public sector. The Board further finds that the availability 7 of these sites will relieve the pressure on privately owned sites 8 for private aggregate use. The Board also finds that the level 9 of investment for use of the site proposed by the Public Works 10 Director is not justified by the use of the site for 10,000 cubic 11 yards per year. The Board also believes the testimony of Mr. 12 Scott, opponent's engineer who is well qualified to testify on • 13 matters of engineering geology and said that the resource on this 14 site was in the same alluvial fan as the Varco Site, shallow 15 (about 5 feet deep) and not unique. Mr. Scott submitted Exs. 5-8 16 to demonstrate that there were other available sites in the area 17 on federal property and that those sites were available for 18 County use. The Board accepts and believes such testimony. 19 The Board also finds that the effect on roads at and around 20 the subject site is considerable, as set forth in the fourth 21 paragraph at p. 12 of the staff report, which the Board accepts 22 and believes.l 23 24 1. "There is a potential cost involved to the County if mining is to occur at this site. 25 Mining activities cause a major increase of traffic both to and from the mining sites. 26 This increase in traffic may increase the rate of deterioration of the roads which bear Page 7 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 101 "' 119 1 The Board finds that the elimination of this site from use 2 for aggregate mining, or the elimination of any one site in the 3 county, except for site 308, "would not significantly impact the 4 total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County." (Staff Report at 5 p. 16.) The County has not eliminated any significant amount of 6 the 24 million cubic yards of aggregate which are on sites which 7 have thus far been determined to have uses conflicting with 8 aggregate resource use. Combined with the relative availability 9 of aggregate on federal lands, the Board concludes that there 10 would be little effect on public users of aggregate by the 11 elimination of this site from aggregate use. 12 The Board also finds that there would inevitably be effects 13 on recreational uses by permitting mining of the aggregate 14 resource and concludes that the risks of such mining to the 15 County's tourist industry would be unacceptably high. 16 Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values 17 and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the 18 Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that 19 wildlife, open space and scenic values should be used fully, to 20 the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. 21 6. Social Consequences -- The Board adopts the general 22 discussion of this matter at p. 13 of the staff report but 23 rejects the site specific discussion. The Board finds that the 24 25 the burden of this traffic. Cost of 26 rehabilitating or resurfaceing [sic] these roads could be quite high. Page 8 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD)�:.-3.? MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Itel 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 101 - 1198 subject site has open space and scenic values as part of the Tumalo-Sisters area and that the noise, dust, and traffic generated by the use of this site for surface mining adversely affects the tourist industry in this area. The Board also finds that the reduction of the numbers of deer and other wildlife affects the tourist industry over and above the inherent value of wildlife to the County. The Board also finds that, because of the availability of other sources of aggregate in the area that the social welfare of County residents and taxpayers remains substantially unaffected by the decision to allow conflicting Goal 5 uses fully. The decision to rezone the subject site to a resource use, rather than a surface mining or rural residential use, will also aid in retaining the wildlife, scenic view and open space character. 7. Energy Consequences -- The Board finds no significant energy consequence of designating the subject site for surface mining use, given the relative availability to public agencies of other sources of aggregate on federal lands. 8. Environmental Consequences -- The Board agrees with much of the general discussion of these consequences found at p. 14-15 of the staff report. The Board finds that the subject site is near, but not adjacent to a wildlife rehabilitation facility and believes the testimony of Ms. Steele that the facility would be adversely affected by the location of a surface mining operation in the area. The Board believes staff testimony that the subject site is within the Tumalo Deer Winter Range. 9 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD)4„ MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 n L-A 101 - 1199 1 The Board is not convinced that utilization of the subject 2 site for surface mining would ever enhance its environmental 3 value and finds no evidence in the record for such a conclusion. 4 Moreover, the Board has determined that adverse environmental 5 consequences on wildlife, as indicated in Mr. Duble's testimony, 6 is far greater than set forth in the staff report and, in fact, 7 rises to an unacceptable level. 8 The Board believes the testimony of Dr. Thompson, Ms. Miller 9 and Mr. Steele, that the effects of noise, traffic and occupancy 10 of the site will have significant adverse effects on wildlife 11 which cannot be mitigated during the period in which mining is 12 proposed to occur. In addition, the Board does not find that the 13 site can ever be .restored to wildlife use. 14 CONCLUSION 15 Based on the foregoing evaluation, the Board concludes that 16 the subject site should not be designated "SM" on the Deschutes 17 County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance map. 18 Dated this day of 1989. 19 20 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 21 FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON 22 23 Lois Bristow Prante, Chair 24 25 Gene Maudlin, Commissioner 26 Tom Throop, Commissioner Page 10 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) MITCHELL, LANG & SMITH Attorneys at Law 2000 One Main Place, 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone 221-1011 10 1200 EXHIBIT SCHEDULE SITE NO. 271 Date Color Received Exhibit Description Code Page Maps Blue 131 Memorandum from Public Works Blue 132 Letter from Jay S. Hampton Peach 19 Legal Description Blue 130 Cover Information Sheet Blue 129 Rock Site Field Evaluation Blue 133 Inventory Information Sheet Blue 134 Letter from R. T. Panuccio Peach 30 County -Owned Resource Inventory Blue 136 Copy of OAR 660-15 Blue 49 Maps Blue 135 Photos Peach 127 Factual Data Report by Larry Rice Gray 124 Petition Peach 111 Board of Commissioners' Hearing Minutes Fuchsia 115 Letter from Don Cruikshank Peach 102 Note from Elton F. O'Donnell Peach 85 Petitions Peach 86 Planning Commission Recommendation Fuchsia 116 Board of Commissioners' Decision Minutes Fuchsia 117 Resume of Albert Duble, Acoustical Engineer Gray 122 Larry Rice's Testimony Gray 121 Legal Description Gray 120 Staff Report Yellow 118 Packet of information submitted 3/10/86 (ZC-85-7) Peach 29 80 06-12 Letter from Patricia A. Cramer Peach 95 80 07-28 Letter from Kathy Harrison Peach 87 86 03-10 Letter & attachments from Kathy Harrison Peach 88 88 07-21 Letter from Dick Johnson/D.C. Road Department Gray 99 88 11-16 Letter from John & Helen Meier Peach 1 88 12-07 Letter from Kathleen Miller Peach 52 89 01-16 Century West/Geotechnical Evaluation Gray 119 89 01-27 Letter from Dave Jaqua Peach 89 89 01-30 Letter from Kathy Miller Peach 2 89 02-10 Letter from Frank Bales Peach 50 89 02-12 Note from Dorothy Stevens Peach 53 89 02-12 Letter from John W. Grant Peach 54 89 02-13 Letter from Bill Stevens Peach 55 89 02-13 Letter from John W. Grant Peach 4 89 02-13 Letter from Bill Stevens Peach 100 89 02-13 Letter from Gary Hayden Peach 3 89 02-14 Letter from Sharon M. Wolbert Peach 93 89 02-14 Letter from Lloyd T. Hampton Peach 94 89 02-14 Letter from Rich & Corrine Rago Peach 8 99 02-14 Letter from Bill Stevens Peach 5 89 02-14 Letter from Mr. Keisow Peach 6 89 02-14 Letter from Mr. Mrs. Z. J. Peach 7 Al - 1201 89 02-14 Letter from Sharon Wolbert Peach 98 89 02-15 Letter from Frank Bales Peach 14 89 02-15 Letter from Sharon M. Wolbert Peach 15 89 02-15 Letter from Myron & Marian Gustafson Peach 11 89 02-15 Letter from Cameron & Martha Thomas Peach 13 89 02-15 Letter from Connie Bruneau Peach 10 89 02-16 Letter from George J. & Barbara -Lee Winterfield Peach 17 89 02-16 Letter from Barbara Butler Peach 16 89 02-16 Letter from Mrs. Linda Meyers Peach 18 89 02-17 Letter from John T. & Helen S. Meier Peach 23 89 02-17 Letter from Christopher G. Carr Peach 22 89 02-17 Letter from Mrs. Willard Mitchell Peach 20 89 02-17 Letter from Robert & Betty Harries Peach 56 89 02-17 Letter from Sara Vickerman Peach 57 89 02-17 Letter from Brigitte K. Gager Peach 21 89 02-19 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 90 89 02-19 Letter from Kathy Miller Peach 58 89 02-20 Letter from Dennis Nason Peach 62 89 02-20 Letter from ? Peach 59 89 02-20 Letter from Greg Wolfe Peach 61 89 02-20 Letter from Paul Dewey Peach 60 89 02-21 Letter from Marvin A. Larson Peach 37 89 02-21 Letter from Shirley Conley Peach 38 89 02-21 Letter from Sara Vickerman Peach 36 89 02-21 Letter from Paul & Annece Davis Peach 40 89 02-21 Letter from Robert E. & Betty J. Harris Peach 39 89 02-21 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 33 89 02-21 Letter from Homer Williamston Peach 24 89 02-21 Letter from Laura Sprengel Peach 32 89 02-21 Letter from Milton C. Sparks Peach 41 89 02-21 Letter from Don Cruikshank Peach 34 89 02-21 Letter from Edward W. Styskel Peach 35 89 02-21 Letter from Donna Kennedy Peach 31 89 02-21 Letter from Jan Volz Peach 42 89 02-21 Letter from Eric Dolson Blue 114 89 02-21 Note from Betty Allen Peach 63 89 02-22 Letter from Paul Dewey Peach 25 89 02-22 Packet of letters from Kathy Miller Peach 28 89 02-22 Message from Linda Clempel & Joe Cannon Peach 26 89 02-23 Letter from Mark Becker Peach 44 89 02-23 Letter from Ted Hurd Gray 45 89 02-23 Letter from ODFW Buff 46 89 02-23 Letter from Duane Hansen Peach 47 89 03-21 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 140 89 03-22 Letter from Dennis Nason Peach 110 89 03-28 Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Barry Frazier Peach 64 89 04-01 Letter from Milton & Barbara Sparks Peach 65 89 04-05 Letter from Rod and Sandy McDonald Peach 66 89 04-05 Letter from Amos & Amy McDonald Peach 67 89 04-12 Letter from Dr. and Mrs. Ray Walpole Peach 69 89 04-12 Letter from Dennis Nason Peach 68 99 04-13 Letter from Ken Davis Peach 48 89 04-13 Letter from Barbara -Lee & George Winterfield Peach 70 89 04-14 Letter from Isabel Smith Peach 71 'a.�j 5." of - 1202 89 04-18 Letter from Milt & Barbara Sparks Peach 72 89 04-18 Letter from Corrine Rago Peach 73 89 04-20 Letter from Charles & Marilyn Pavone Peach 7.4 89 04-22 Letter from Robert & Betty Harries Peach 75 89 04-22 Letter from Ian & Debra Carter Peach 76 89 04-23. Letter from -Alan & Linda Parmenter Peach 77 89 04-23 Letter from Barbara Butler Peach 78 89 04-24 Letter from Cameron B. Thomas Peach 139 89 04-26 Letter from Martha Thomas Peach 43 89 04-29 Letter & attachments from Brockway Farms Peach 79 89 05-01 Letter from Grace Bons Williamston Peach 138 89 05-04 Letter from John and Anna Scott Peach 105 89 05-04 Letter from Richard A. Rago Peach 96 89 05-04 Letter from ODFW Buff 128 89 05-05 Letter from Gary D. Seaquist Peach 106 89 05-05 Letter from Michael Nelson Peach 113 89 05-05 Ponderosa Cascade Property Owners Peach 107 89 05-05 Letter from Debbie & Ray Wagner Peach 109 89 05-09 Letter from G. W. & Rosemary Johnson Peach 112 89 05-09 Letter from G. W. & Rosemary Johnson Peach 97 89 05-10 Letter from Eric Dolson Blue 80 89 05-12 Letter from Steven D. Olds Peach 103 89 05-12 Letter from Ken Davis Peach 137 89 05-15 Letter from F. Peter Boehm, M.D. Peach 81 89 05-16 Letter from Gregory C. Musgrave Peach 126 89 05-16 Letter from Roger Borine Peach 83 89 05-16 Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Barry Frazier Peach 82 89 05-17 County Roads Serviced by Livesay Site Gray 123 89 05-17 Memo from the Nasons Peach 84 89 05-17 Letter from Sandra Olds Peach 108 89 05-18 Winter Wildlife Refuge Species Listing Peach 125 89 05-19 Letter from Larry Rice/D.C. Road Department Gray 104 89 05-25 Opponent's Concluding Comments Peach 91 89 06-05 Letter from Warren & Rosemary Johnson Peach 92 12 U 3 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 273/274 Site Number 273/274, occupying tax lots 100 and 700, respec- tively, in Township 15 South, Range 11, Section 17, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 273/274 comprises approximately 240 acres and is located adjacent to the County landfill on Fryrear Road, one and one-half miles south of Highway 126. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is currently zoned SMR. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 ( 12U4 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife and Larry Rice, Deschutes County Director of Public Works. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 75,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. This resource is located entirely in the canyon that divides the two sites. It would be used by the County for road maintenance and construction pur- poses. A geotechnical evaluation performed on the site by Century West Engineering questioned whether mining would be economi- cal on the narrower section of the canyon. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 273 is off Fryrear Road, which is roughly seven miles east of Sisters on the McKenzie Highway. This site is to the west of Fryrear Road at the Fryrear landfill running from the canyon north up the hill. The south end of the site is at the bottom of the head of Deep Canyon. To the north, the site climbs to a plateau area near the middle of the site. The bulk of the site is on the plateau above the canyon. The site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees and sagebrush. Site 274 is to the west of Fryrear Road at the Fryrear landfill immediately to the south of site 273. The north end of the site is at the bottom of the head of Deep Canyon. to the south, the site climbs to a plateau area near the middle of the site. The bulk of the site is on the plateau above the canyon. The site is natural and drainage appears adequate. The site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees and sagebrush. Directly northeast of the site is the Fryrear landfill (site 275). The rest of the surrounding property is vacant with a large farmed field to the south. Fryrear Butte is one-half mile to the west of the site. There are a couple of resi- dential properties within one-half mile of the site, but none are visible from the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 )"P10t 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, the resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be sensitive habitat for golden eagles. The presence of golden eagles in the area was confirmed by Larry Rice during the ESEE process. 2. Open space and scenic values. Although the staff report indicates scenic and open space values, the area has not been specially identified in any way for scenic values. Consequently, such values are not considered to be a resource at the site. The Board finds that wildlife habitat conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of wildlife habitat, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human pre- sence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact wildlife and their habitat. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses, except motorcycle tracks, utility facilities and personal use landing strips are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that of the identified conflicting allowed or conditional uses, only a couple of residences currently exist to the south of the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 Al - 12 0 G primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. The site is not likely to attract visi- tors, given that it is adjacent to a County landfill. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area and visitors come to the site only for landfill disposal purposes, the social consequences of reduced wildlife viewing opportunities would be non-existent. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and the eagle population of the site. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find .other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortal- ity rate for the area's wildlife. The noise associated with the mining likely would cause the golden eagles to abandon their nest. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 W tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The eagle population would likely also be scared away by mining activity. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 G(� 1200 failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. The Board finds that the economic benefit of mining this site may be limited since according to the geotechnical survey, a portion of the deposit may be uneconomical to mine. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of deer and raptor habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the consequences, the Board finds that the wildlife resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 • • 1C� 1209 The County bases this decision on the following: (a) Although aggregate is in short supply in the County, this site represents about .001% of the total aggregate needs of the County. (b) Portions of this deposit would be uneconomical to mine due to the configuration of the canyon. (c) By its decision on other sites, the County has pre- served a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. That amount is sufficient to meet the County's needs over the planning period. (d) The amounts preserved include a nearby County site of much greater volume, 175,000 cubic yards. (e) The site represents one of only nine identified golden eagle areas in the County's comprehensive plan. In addition, deer habitat is continually shrinking due to increased development in the County's rural areas. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and that present surface mining zoning for the site will be removed and replaced within EFU-40 zoning. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 273/274 A 1113 I T A 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 1L. i0l 1210 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #273 SURFACE MINING INVENTORY SHEET NOTIFICATION MAPS APPLICANTS STATEMENT ON QUALITY & QUANTITY APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT LETTER FROM W.H. BOYER LETTER FROM AUDUBON LETTER FROM P. HERFORD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MYLAR TOPO MAP lq-fko- imrr, OIDFa tW mrd O� Cvr�rri�55tone r5 hee r'� �cj rrm %%l acs -60atd 06 deUScon m+ nuA32S TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #274 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS i 01- - 1211 4. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS AND STAFF REPORT 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 7. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP �1 CAC o (,J U ` ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 275 Site Number 275, occupying tax lot 2400 in Township 15 South, Range 11, Section 16, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 275 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located on Fryrear Road one and one-half miles south of the McKenzie Highway. The site is owned by Deschutes County and constitutes a part of the Fryrear Landfill. The site is cur- rently zoned SMR. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 i0l - 1213 In addition, testimony was received from Larry Rice, Deschutes County Public Works Director. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 175,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is the Fryrear Landfill located on Fryrear Road. The McKenzie Highway is one and one-half miles north of the site. The site is at the head of Deep Canyon. The canyon (gully) cuts through the northwest corner of the site. The vegeta- tion is natural juniper trees and sagebrush, except where the landfill is. Deep Canyon does not have any running surface water in it. The area surrounding the site is all vacant land. There are a couple of residential acreage properties to the north along Fryrear Road, which are over one-half mile away. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to be adjacent to sensitive golden eagle habitat. 2. Open space and scenic values. Although the staff report indicates that open space and scenic values are an attribute of this site, the Board finds that there are no such values here. The site is an existing landfill. The Board finds that wildlife habitat resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 ()310 i 0 l - 1.215 Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area and visitors come to the site for landfill disposal purposes, the social consequences of reduced wildlife viewing opportunities would be non-existent. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and raptor habitat. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortal- ity rate for the area's wildlife. In this case, such adverse effect are occurring in any event due to the site's use as a landfill. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is some evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. Zoning for surface mining would bring to this landfill site reclamation requirements where none now exist. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event at this site due to its landfill use. In addition, aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. Deer and raptor habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 s 312 101 - 121E would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes that preserving of aggre- gate resources by public entities such as Deschutes County for highway maintenance and construction needs can result in reduced costs for public highway maintenance and construc- tion. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 �1crs 101 - 1217 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of deer and raptor habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resources, wildlife resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development. 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would not have much, if any, energy consequences due to the present use of this site as a landfill. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the wildlife habitat and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in"limited supply in the County and there is a need for aggregate near highways such as the McKenzie Highway for highway maintenance. Deer and raptor habitats are continually being lost to new develop- ment. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660- 16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the deer and raptor habitat. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that there is little development in this 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 f 314 , 01 -, 121 3 area, property values do not appear to be a concern in any event. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site would be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with any existing land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. It does not appear that there are any existing land uses to be impacted, however. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 126 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of the few uses identified above, all uses in the surrounding zoning desig- nations are classed as noise -sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock opera- tions. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 M 5 I ()�1 1219 yards and sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 `_ 31 G 0l -^ 1220 property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise impacts shall be mitigated by buffering and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Wildlife recommendations of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as set forth in this ESEE process for sites recommended for winter range and special wildlife conditions. Such limitations are to apply to process- ing of sand and gravel only and not to dirt; (e) Processing is to occur on the east side of site 275 only, away from the raptor nests. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure from processing will offer protection for deer at the site. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter processing limitations will not be unduly restrictive, since 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 ,317 it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses.and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited Closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 i01 - 124"2 to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Any existing conflicting land uses.are protected by the requirements in the zoning ordinance that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise stan- dards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface distur- bance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 275 �xf�(13i-rA 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #275 INVENTORY SHEET LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL NOTIFICATION MAPS LEGEND & INVENTORY SHEET FROM PUBLIC WORKS APPRAISERS SHEET & STAFF REPORT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FROM CENTURY WEST 1/16/89 MYLAR OF TOPO MAP BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECISION MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION LETTER FROM ODFW 9-10-89 122': F 3328 � 1224 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 277 Site Number 277, occupying tax lot 1100 in Township 15 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 11, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 277 comprises approximately 20 acres and is located approximately one and one-half miles east of Sisters on Highway 126. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 0321 (!. 125 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife and two neighboring residents. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel meeting Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located on the south side of the Redmond -Sisters Highway, roughly one and one- half miles east of Sisters. The site has natural vegetation around the edges and is cleared in the middle where an existing pit and storage area are located. The pit is roughly two to three acres and the storage area is roughly five acres. To the west are two large open fields; the southern field is currently being farmed; to the south is vacant land; to the north of the site, across the highway are residential prop- erties. The gravel mining operation can be seen from a couple of these properties and the road. Within one-half mile of the property is Squaw Creek to the north, along with residential properties, and primarily farms and residential acreage properties in other directions. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's LM zoning for shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 126. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 { ; 302 with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses, except motorcycle tracks, personal landing strips and utility uses are conflicting in that full protec- tion of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that the existing conflicting allowed or conditional uses consist of residential properties across the highway to the north. Two neighboring residents opposed zoning the site for surface mining due to the impacts of noise, dust and truck traffic on their residential use of nearby properties. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 i 0 , I - 1227 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and exacerbate an existing visual disturbance. The social consequences would be felt by both residents and those travelling Highway 126 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscar- red landscape. Such impacts would be lessened by the fact the mine already exists. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and scenic views along the Highway 126 corridor. Continued surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some deer might be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. The operator would be required to reclaim the site in any event, unless it were grandfathered. B. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highways 20 and 126. the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. Deer habitat is 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 319 A. in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the Highway 126 corridor could only be protected by precluding or limiting mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 126 and near Highway 20 would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the Highway 126 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 126 corridor for highway maintenance. Deer habitat is continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 i ()I 123U While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project, and two neighboring residents testified to that effect. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highways 20 and 126 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 �0- - 1231 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of the uses identified above as non -conflicting, all uses in the sur- rounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding con- flicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place con- straints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and site 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is partially undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 jol ^ 1232 cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 126 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 126 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this site outside the Sisters urban growth boundary would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 126. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. With that commitment comes economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The Board finds that there is sufficient undeveloped land in the County to accommodate any displaced uses. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 0 iOl -,, 1233 (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Wildlife shall be protected under the terms and condi- tions set forth in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife letter of August 10, 1989, contained in this file, including shut -down of crushing and blasting operations from December 1 through April 30. (e) Limitation on extraction of material to five acres at one time, with on-going reclamation (subject to review and approval by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.) (f) Placement of processing operations and equipment for the mining at a location on-site that will permit such operation within the sound and dust level limitations required by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). (g) Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing and transportation of the material that meet DEQ vehicle noise level requirements. (h) Use of the site shall be primarily for storage. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter restrictions will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 } i0l - 12.34 adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 ► . 1235 aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 277 E X4-41 B IT A SOCC- 2 ✓'4AP--> 3 _ arw► s a,,rs C,o w OX" -V* s St4 Levu � �. Co tei 2S I98'7 /4,074 In(--kmCs . E .Tomo y -u a, lqv e 7,,,,,o ,� o ? - ObOT 0- �QAlninq Com�miSSion �Qc_om1�2n � q ah. -6jX IL.1 1237 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 282 Site Number 282, occupying tax lot 100 in Township 17 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 8, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 282 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located in the southeast corner of the northeast corner of section 8. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned F-2. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 i(ji 1233 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is an inactive surface mine which has not previously had DOGAMI permits. It is located in the middle of land owned by Crown Pacific and appears to have been used in the past for logging road construction. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route, with medium frequency of use, and medium use by sensitive raptors. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include [further] destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by [continued] surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and [continued] human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migra- tion. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 t 101 -1239 such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the surrounding area consist of forest land owned by the subject property owner in at least one-half mile in all directions. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. [These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined.] 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 101 - 1240 In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 101 1241 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 I0-1 1242 Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 101 - 1243 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 i0l 1244 undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 0l - 1245 PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to five acres at one time, with on-going incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. f. Wildlife conditions set forth in the ODFW letter of August 10, 1989 that is part of this file. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 342 124G zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 101 - 1247 resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 282 r TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #282 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET 4. NOTIFICATION/MAP SHEET 5. STAFF REPORT 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP iJ'�. 1248 ESEE Findings and Decision W1 1 2 4 9 Site No. 283 Site Number 283, occupying a portion of tax lot 100 in Township 17 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 35, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 283 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located in the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 35, approximately one-quarter mile west of Bull Springs Road. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 and WA. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 'J. � ,� {� L_ In addition, testimony was received from the U egon dep r�- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of fair quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is an inactive cinder site west of Bend owned by Crown Pacific. In the past, the site has been used for the construction and maintenance of logging roads. The site is located in the Tumalo deer winter range and adjoins the Deschutes National Forest. The property to the northeast and south is owned by Crown Pacific for over one mile in those directions. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route, with medium frequency of use, and medium use by sensitive raptors. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include [further] destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by [continued] surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and [continued] human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migra- tion. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 got m 1251 water sources at the site. Neither would soil compac- tion be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-2 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 'I.QI - 1252 The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 ifyi 12b3 mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 _:)A. 10111 n 1254 failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimitable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to logging roads would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 101 12b5 C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on logging roads. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 a(rte1 125E 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 101 -, 1257 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 125 Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. Wildlife conditions set forth in the ODFW letter of August 10, 1989 recommending this site for winter range and special wildlife considerations. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require - 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 01 1260 b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 283 1( '. 1261 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #283 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET 4. STAFF REPORT 5. NOTIFICATION MAP 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 101 - 1262 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 288 Site Number 288, occupying tax lot 700 in Township 17, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 11, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 25, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Prante abstaining, that this site should not be so clas- sified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 288 comprises approximately 20 acres and is located off of Tyler Road, approximately eight miles northwest of Bend. The site is owned by the Tumalo Irrigation District and is zoned EFU-20 and WA. Surrounding property is zoned EFU-20, SMR, F-2 and WA. The staff report indicates that surrounding areas are zoned LM; however the area is not within the LM zone protect- ing the views along Highway 20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 r� 4 t• .do- i0l - 1263 protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site; Considerable testimony was also received by R. L. Coats, who stated he tested the site and found it had good aggregate, and numerous property owners in opposition to the possible surface mining of the property. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 250,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. The Board's inventory findings on this site are set forth in the inventory ordinance, Deschutes County Ordinance No. 90-025. 2. Site Characteristics. This parcel is located on Tyler Road which runs through the length of the subject site. The majority of the site is north of Tyler Road. Tyler Road is a dirt/gravel road in fair condition. The site slopes gently down toward the east with dry drainage running through the property. The site is predominately pine trees with some juniper and sagebrush. The Tumalo feed canal runs just south of the site. The site is in a natural state and there is no evidence that prior mining has occurred. The subject site is surrounded by vacant and improved residen- tial acreage properties and agriculatural land. There are numerous residential/ranch properties on 10 to 40 -acre parcels within one-half mile of the site. At least two residences are located on the rimrock above the site. These homes have mountain and terrain views over the subject property. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as being a part of the Tumalo deer winter range. Considerable evidence in contained in the file regarding the importance of this deer winter range. ODF&W has also identified the site as having medium - sensitive raptor use. Area residents testified that 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 (), r = a i,,f 101 , IZ64 red-tailed hawks, sharp -shinned hawks, and bald eagles have been observed in the area. 2. Open space values. The site's zoning as EFU-20 indi- cates important open space values. Open space enhances the scenic views from this area toward the Cascades and habitat for deer and other wildlife. Testimony of areas residents stressed the spectacular views from the area toward the Cascades and the surrounding landscape. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and testimony from area residents, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Testimony from area residents raised the concern that fugitive dust emissions from the site and trucks hauling material away from the site could interfere with the views of the Cascades and the surrounding high desert. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. In addition, the board finds that the nature of the aggregate at the site would require extensive blasting. The impact of all this would generally be to displace deer from such areas. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife and open space values in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-20 and the F-2 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting and processing) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. 3. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. Several residents spoke to the fact that they chose to purchase homesites in the this area due to the natural beauty of the area and specifically checked the zoning prior to purchasing to determine whether the area had surface mining activity nearby. 3. Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. This could impact all uses in the EFU-20 zone, except that agricultural uses could be made on the unexcavated portions of the property. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, all possible uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses, only residential uses presently occur. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and open space do not have any economic values attached to them. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 101 - 1266 Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and would impact open space values. The social consequences of such impacts would be the reduced wildlife viewing opportunities to area residents and the negative impacts on open space values from fugitive dust. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and open space. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that preservation of this site would likely have overall positive energy consequences due to the fact that this site is located closer to development activities on the northwest side of Bend than any other commercial site. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 01 -, 126.1 Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 i 0l - 1 268 improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of open space and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggre- gate resource, wildlife resources and open space resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site could involve increased haulage distances of aggregate materials to the development projects occurring on the northwest side of Bend. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would therefore more likely than not have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources values at the site are relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: a. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. b. Deer habitat in the County is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, Board finds that the conflicting deer habitat value should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2) the conflicting natural resource value of deer habitat should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ - 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 10 " 1269 ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The Board finds that while the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of sur- rounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by area residents, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, blasting, and fugitive dust produced by the proposed surface mine. The Board finds that the impacts of truck traffic on Tyler Road would be significant due to its poor and unpaved condition. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals could have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to development sites north and west of Bend would compare favorably with haul distances from other sources in the County. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 1011 - 1270 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 13 above. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development, could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments on the northwest side of Bend would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commit - 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 160 12�� ment is accompanied by economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting deer habitat resource and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of aggregate, which com- bined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 288 R � l i 10 1, m '12. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #288 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. LETTER FROM JANET L. BOETTCHER DATED 5/27/80 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORTS 5. LETTER NORM BEHRENS 8/21/89 6. LETTER DANIEL KEARNS 8/13/89 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR 9. LETTER FROM DAN KEARNS 10/7/89 10. LETTER FROM JAMES ATTERHOLT 9/5/89 11. LETTER FROM JOHN C. BELL 8/28/89 12. LETTER FORM JAMES ATTERHOLT 8/21/89 13. LETTER FROM KELLY SMITH & SANDE SCHMIDT 8/18/89 14. LETTER FROM ORE. HUNTERS ASSOC. 8/17/89 15. LETTER FROM WESLEY MILLER 8/25/89 16. LETTER FROM WESLEY MILLER 8/16/89 17. LETTER FROM DANIEL KEARNS 8/13/89 I`b. leA.e✓ Om ODF--ccs q-1O-sli. 1g' rd db �Omrn ►sS�rS heac►c rriri s 20.� cd 06 comrri ►-S 10 ne4s deus►�n cyit (Zt3CitS 01 - 1273 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 292 Site Number 292, occupying tax lot 900, in Township 17 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 25, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Prante abstaining, that this site should not be so clas- sified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 292 is located on Johnson Road in Tumalo just south of its intersection with Tyler Road and comprise approxi- mately 40 acres. The site is owned by R.L. Coats and is zoned EFU-20, LM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20, SM and SMR. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding are was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 12 7 4 Testimony was also received from R.L. Coats, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Hunters Association and numerous neighbors from adjacent residential properties. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 326,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics and Factual Background. The Board finds the following facts to be true. This site is in Tumalo along the east side of Johnson Road opposite the point where Tyler Road intersects Johnson Road. The site is immediately adjacent to Site 293. The lot is heavily treed and has not been mined previously. R.L. Coats testified during the ESEE hearings that he purchased the site primarily as a buffer to protect site 293 from conflicting development. He also testified that the site did not have as much sand and gravel on it as did site 293 and that he would not be needing the site for 30 years, given the amount of gravel he had at his existing sites. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Open space and scenic. The site is subject to LM zoning along the Johnson Road corridor to protect the scenic views along Johnson Road. 2. Wildlife habitat. The site has a wildlife combining zone overlay in recognition that this site is within the Tumalo deer winter range. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer winter range. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space, scenic and recreational values are impacted by removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 of L01 12*r5 infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. In addition, noise from processing operations, heavy equipment and trucks can intrude on recreational open space lands, such as park lands. Johnson Road is a heavily used road connecting residen- tial properties in the area to the Bend urban area. The visual impacts of surface mining would be readily observed from Johnson Road. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construc- tion of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140, 4.150 and 4.230 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the EFU-40 zone to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclusion of other uses. (2) On those portions of the site available for other development, the impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensitive uses, as defined below and aesthetic impacts. These uses would include all uses within the zone except utility uses. Surrounding zones (EFU-20, RR -10) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, feed lots, personal use landing strips and other mining uses. The Board finds that existing residential development at the nearby subdivisions and other residential properties would be adversely affected. Many of these residents testified concerning the probable impacts of noise on their quality of life. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. Because of the site's proximity to nearby subdivisions and to Tumalo State Park, truck traffic conflicts would be substan- tial. Neighbors testified about their use of area roads for walking and biking being threatened. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The visual impacts would also affect those using Johnson Road. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. Such surrounding mining devel- opment lowers the level of conflict at this site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 01 -^ 12 .t suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to the Johnson Road scenic corridor. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife, scenic, and recrea- tional attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic qualities of the Johnson Road corridor. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remain- ing forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views from Johnson Road would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topography. In addition, the recreational attributes of the Deschutes corridor would be impacted by the noise, dust, and truck traffic associated with surface mining. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to the Bend-Tumalo market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 101 -, 1278 such as this that are convenient to urban market areas and processing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The site has great signifi- cance due to its large size and close -in location. Unlike many other site, loss of this particular site would defi- nitely be felt in the Bend-Tumalo market area. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend-Tumalo market area and that consequently preserva- tion of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower aggre- gate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 0,1 1279 sources of supply cannot be created by man. The Board finds that given the size and close -in location of this site, is has great significance. Unlike many other sites, loss of this particular site would at some point have some impact on the aggregate supply and price of aggregate in the local market. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic, wildlife, and recreational values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental conse- quences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources, and scenic and recreational resources are often limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development and cannot be recreated. Scenic and recreational resources such as Tumalo State Park likewise are limited in number and cannot easily be recreated by manmade substitutes. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the Goal 5 resources are more important than the conflicting aggregate values. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Although this is a relatively large aggregate deposit, it is not as large as site 293 immediately to the south (which has ten times the resource) and the operator testified that given the amount of aggregate available 7 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 292 d Lill :1280 to him, this site was more valuable to him as a buffer for his current operations than as an operation sand and gravel mine. (b) Through its decisions on other sites, the Board has protected 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate materia- ls, an amount sufficient to meet the County's sand and gravel needs for the planning period. (c) This site is not an existing mining site; (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development and cannot be recreated elsewhere; and (e) Johnson Road is a heavily travelled road and a main arterial leading from Bend to the scenic Tumalo area. Accordingly, the scenic corridor is an important open space and scenic resource for both visitors and resi- dents. Such resources have importance for the regional tourism economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2), it will allow the conflicting use fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. Some neighboring residents expressed concern about their property values. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, as mentioned above, trend analy- sis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Testimony during the ESEE hearings estab- lished that Johnson Road is a narrow road and not the best 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 roadway for handling large amounts of truck traffic. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to recreational sites such as Tumalo State Park. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity would be felt primarily in the nearby residences to the southwest and northwest and by the users of Tumalo State Park to the northeast, as set forth above. The high level of use of Tumalo State Park in the summertime would heighten the land use conflicts at this site. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, co hicts12 b arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, this is one of a handful of sites that would definitely have an impact on the ability to meet the community's aggregate needs due to its size and location close to the Bend-Tumalo market. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic and recreational values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment.because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Acrareaate_Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the mineral and aggregate use of the property. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 Al 1283 This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), of paragraph 12 above. (b) Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. The nearby residences are well established subdivisions and individual homes in the area. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16- 010(2) it will allow the conflicting uses fully. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife and scenic resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and will retain its present EFU-20 zoning. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 292 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 0 iol 1284 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #292 COVER INFORMATION SHEET COVER INFORMATION SHEET MAP GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/14/87 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/30/86 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/18/85 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/14/83 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/19/78 MAP OF PARCEL WITH GENERAL LOCATION OF MINERAL DEPOSIT 3/23/89 MAP OF SITES OWNED BY R.L. COATS WITH MINERAL DEPOSITS CONTRACT OF SALE ON PARCEL 8/21/78 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/10/88 LETTER FROM KITTY WARNER 3/10/89 LETTER FROM.HERB HUNT 4/1/89 LETTER FROM GREG HENDRIX 4/6/89 LETTER FROM DAN KERN 4/23/89 LETTER FROM GREG HENDRIX 4/24/89 OBJECTION STATEMENT FROM GREG HENDRIX 5/10/89 NOTIFICATION MAPS STAFF REPORT LETTER G. HENDRIX 3/8/89 1 Al - 1285 22. LETTER J. NORTHON 5/10/89 23. LETTER G. HENDRIX 6/30/88 24, PETITION OF OBJECTION FILED GREG HENDRIX 5/23/89 25. LETTER FROM CHUCK MCGRAW 5/1/89 26. LETTER KITTY WARNER 3/10/89 27. LETTER GREG HENDRIX 3/8/89 28. LETTER FROM GREG HENDRIX 4/24/89 29. MAP & MEMORANDUM OF CONTRACT 30. MYLAR 31. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/18/89 32. LETTER FROM ORE. HUNTERS ASSOC. 8/17/89 33. LETTER FROM JAMES ATTERHOLT 8/21/89 34. LETTER FROM JOHN BELL 8/28/89 35. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 36. LETTER FROM KELLY SMITH & SANDI SCHMIDT 8/18/89 37. LETTER FROM PAUL RUGLOSKI 8/21/89 Cvenm►�s►on �� �� vb mrrn, loft:S inc,4"n%0uZUs v �►'nm►��cv�cz�5 C��C�V510►1 trtnw�-S 2 101 -" 128G ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 293 Site Number 293, occupying tax lots 500, 600, 700 and 800, in Township 17 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 25, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Prante abstaining, that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 293 is located on Johnson Road in Tumalo just south of its intersection with Tyler Road and comprises approxi- mately 90 acres. The site is owned by R.L. Coats and is zoned SM, SMR and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20, RSR -5 and RSR -M. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding are was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 Testimony was also received from R.L. Coats, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Coalition for the Deschutes, the Parks and Recreation Division of the Oregon Division of Transportation (State Parks), the Oregon Hunters Association and numerous neighbors from adjacent residential properties. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 3 million cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics and Factual Background. The Board finds the following facts to be true. This site is in Tumalo south of Tumalo Park Road and east of Johnson Road. Tumalo Park Road is 1/4 mile south of Johnson and Tyler Roads. Tax lot 500 is bisected by Tumalo Creek and is the most easterly of the sites. Tax lots 600 and 700, located just to the west of tax lot 500 slope down to a small drainage that runs through the properties diagonally. These three tax lots (excepting the easterly portion of tax lot 500) are currently being mined for sand, and have little vegetation on the lots. There are two springs on the eastern edge of these two sites, which have developed two ponds in the lowest areas of the site. Tax lot 800 (about 80 acres) borders Johnson Road and is a fairly open, level lot that is currently planted with alfalfa. Deer are often seen feeding on this site in the early morning and evening. This site is at the north end of a very large area of gravel reserves. The Klippel Acres site (site 294) is just to the south; Coats' large mining operation inside the Bend urban growth boundary is located across Tumalo Creek just to the southeast. To the west are residential acreage sites. Directly south of the subject's east site are a couple of residential acreage properties. To the east is Tumalo Creek. To the north are natural large acreages. The front lot is highly visible from Johnson Road, while the rear sites are screened by a large stand of trees. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 S ° 3 i01 m 1288 Resources 1. State scenic waterway. A segment of the Deschutes River just to the east of this site has been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Such designation includes a 1/4 mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that the scenic waterway corridor touches a portion of tax lot 500 of this site. State scenic waterway designation is based upon a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, archeological and recreational and other values. From the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River study, the outstanding attributes of the river in this segment appear to be its scenic and recreational qualities. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 2. Open space and scenic. Land adjacent to tax lot 500 is occupied by Tumalo State Park. In addition, the site is subject to LM zoning along the Johnson Road corridor to protect the scenic views along Johnson Road. 3. Wildlife habitat. The site has a wildlife combining zone overlay in recognition that this site is within the Tumalo deer winter range. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer winter range. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space, scenic and recreational values are impacted by removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. In addition, noise from processing operations, heavy equipment and trucks can intrude on recreational open space lands, such as park lands. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 10.1 1289 In this case, the impacts on open space, scenic and recreational values would be felt primarily in the adjacent parcel of Tumalo State Park land and along the Johnson Road scenic corridor. Johnson Road is a heavily used road connecting residential properties in the area to the Bend urban area. The scenic impacts in this corridor would occur only if mining were to occur on the westernmost portions of tax lot 800, as the existing trees at the site screens the current opera- tions from view. Testimony of area residents suggested that if mining were allowed on the site, it not be extended to the western portion of tax lot 800. The adjacent Tumalo State park land is unimproved and used primarily by day hikers. Visitors making use of the park would be subjected to the visual disturbances created by mining at the site. State Parks in its testimony has asked that the site be screened from the park. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construc- tion of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. (3) Visual Impacts on the Deschutes River state scenic waterway would appear to be negligible. State Parks did not mention impacts in its testimony. In addition, the scenic waterway corridor touches only a portion of tax lot 500. It is possible that mining operations close to Tumalo Creek could cause water quality pro- blems downstream, however, there is no indication that surface mining at this site would create water quality problems. State scenic waterway status does not preclude mining in scenic waterways, but allows for mining operations in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks approval. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140, 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 12 9 U 4.150 and 4.230 of the Deschutes County zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the SM and SMR zones to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclu- sion of other uses. On those portions of the site available for other development, the impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensitive uses, as defined below and aesthe- tic impacts. These uses would include all uses within the zone except utility uses. This is not viewed as much of a conflict, since the purpose of SM and SMR zoning is to facilitate surface mining. Surrounding zones (EFU-20, RR -10) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, feed lots, personal use landing strips and other mining uses. The Board finds that existing residential development at the nearby subdivisions and other residential properties and park uses on Tumalo State Park property would be adversely affected. The nearby Saddleback and Klippel Acres subdivisions have at least 30 residential sites within the impact area, and many of these resi- dents testified concerning the probable impacts of noise on their quality of life. Similar testimony came from residents to the northwest of the site. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 e j . F'� -. safety of residential neighborhoods. Because of the site's proximity to nearby subdivisions and to Tumalo State Park, truck traffic conflicts would be substan- tial. Neighbors testified about their use of area roads for walking and biking being threatened. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The visual impacts would be greatest if mining were to expand to the west to include most of tax lot 800, which is presently zoned SMR. (5) Impact on Property Values. Many residents testified about the probable downward effect continued mining would have at the site. At least one resident tes- tified that a potential sale fell through due to this proposed surface mining zoning. The Board finds this testimony to be anecdotal in nature and not a suffi- cient basis for concluding that property values or salability would be affected. No testimony was offered referring to any studies showing that market values decline or that sales stop. Such testimony did not address the valuation question or salability question with regard to surface mines sited with proper environ- mental controls. Furthermore, the Board notes that the there are many instances in the County where surface mines are sited in close proximity to homes. The Board finds that in this instance, the surface mine at this site preexisted many of the homes in the area. The Board finds that the testimony on this issue was affected by the instant controversy and uncertainty of the process and that such testimony did not present a true picture of value or salability. The Board stands by the analysis provided through the Assessor's office that over the long term, property values do not decline nor do sales stop. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. Such surrounding mining devel- opment lowers the level of conflict at this site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 Oji 101 - i29 until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to Tumalo State Park and the Johnson Road scenic corridor. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife, scenic, and recrea- tional attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic and recrea- tional qualities of the Deschutes River corridor. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views from the adja- cent Tumalo State Park lands and from Johnson Road would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topo- graphy. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 1,011 - 1293 opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to the Bend-Tumalo market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this that are convenient to urban market areas and processing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of $.22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The site has great signifi- 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 101 ^ 1294 cance due to its large size and close -in location. Unlike many other site, loss of this particular site would defi- nitely be felt in the Bend-Tumalo market area. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend-Tumalo market area and that consequently preserva- tion of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower aggre- gate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. The Board finds that given the size and close -in location of this site, is has great significance. Unlike many other sites, loss of this particular site would at some point have some impact on the aggregate supply and price of aggregate in the local market. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic, wildlife, and recreational values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental conse- quences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources, and scenic and recreational resources are often limited by 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 _'01 1295 locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development and cannot be recreated. Scenic and recreational resources such as Tumalo State Park likewise are limited in number and cannot easily be recreated by manmade substitutes. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the natural resources are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the Deschutes County economy; (b) Considering the quantity, quality, and location of this site close to the Bend urban area market, this is an important aggregate deposit; (c) This site is an existing mining site; (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development; and (e) The adjacent Tumalo State Park and Johnson Road cor- ridor are important open space, scenic, and recreation resources, for both visitors and residents. Such resources have importance for the regional economy. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 0l - 1296 Some neighboring residents expressed concern about their property values. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, as mentioned above, trend analy- sis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Testimony during the ESEE hearings estab- lished that Johnson Road is a narrow road and not the best roadway for handling large amounts of truck traffic. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to recreational sites such as Tumalo State Park. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity would be felt primarily in the nearby residences to the southwest and northwest and by the users of Tumalo State Park to the northeast, as set forth above. The high level of use of Tumalo State Park in the summertime would heighten the land use conflicts at this site. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 / r 4 , u'l ,, 12 9 _( 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, this is one of a handful of sites that would definitely have an impact on the ability to meet the community's aggregate needs due to its size and location close to the Bend-Tumalo market. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 i 0 1 -" 1298 those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic and recreational values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate materials are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The size and quality of this deposit make it among the most important resources on the inventory. (c) The site is located close to urban markets. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) This is an existing mining site. (e) Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. The nearby Saddleback and Klippel Acres subdivisions are well established commun- ities of homes in the area, as are other residential properties in the area. (f) Tumalo State Park is heavily used during the summer months. Recreation sites, such as Tumalo State Park, 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 '01 - 1299 are increasingly important for the Deschutes County economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the exist- ing SM zoning on tax lots 500, 600 and 700 will be retained, and the easterly half of tax lot 800 will be rezoned from SMR to SM, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening, with particular attention paid to screening to benefit the visual impacts on Tumalo State Park; (c) Processing shall be allowed only on the westerly portion of tax lot 500 and on tax lot 600; (d) The conditions set forth by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in their letter of August 10, 1989, concerning deer winter range areas; (e) Extraction at the site shall be limited to 5 acres at a time, with on-going incremental reclamation (subject to review and approval by DOGAMI); (f) Mining operations, siting of equipment, and trucking of product shall be conducted in such a manner that applicable DEQ standards are met; The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact, the restrictions on winter processing, 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 101 ^ 1300 the 5 -acre limit on excavation, and the reclamation plan conditions. The Board finds that the screening and buffer- ing provisions of the Deschutes County zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014, meet the ESEE screening and buffering requirements. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting mineral and aggregate resources, since the site will be allowed to be mined. 25. In addition, the Board finds that scenic resources along Johnson Road and deer winter range values are protected by not zoning the westerly half of tax lot 800. This zoning shall revert to EFU-20, the same as for the zoning on tax lot 900 to the north which the Board denied for SM zoning in its decision on site 292. Mineral Resource 26. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 27. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" 15 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 3• � I 0l -, 1301 uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 28. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 29. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise stan- dards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. 16 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 293 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #293 ( :1302 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. MAP 4. MAP 5. MAP 6. MAP 7. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 5/5/88 8. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/5/85 9. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/2/84 10. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/2/84 11. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/16/84 12. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 6/21/83 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 5/7/82 14. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 3/4/82 15. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/26/81 16. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/3/80 17. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/11/77 18. NOTIFICATION MAPS 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS AND STAFF REPORT 20. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 21. MYLAR 22. LETTER FROM DAN KEARNS 5/26/89 1 101 - 1303 23. LETTER FROM LINDA BROOKS 5/16/89 24. RECORD OF CONVERSATION 5/9/89 25. LETTER FROM ROSSI 2/12/80 26. LETTER FROM ORE HUNTERS ASSOC. 8/17/89 27. LETTER FROM JAMES ATTERHOLT 8/21/89 28. LETTER FROM JOHN BELL 8/28/89 29. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/18/89 30. LETTER FROM KELLY SMITH & SANDI SCHMIDT 8/18/89 31. LETTER FROM PAUL RUGLOSKI 8/21/89 TARL.E OF CONTENTS 1 y SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 'Cover information sheet 2 - Cover information sheet 3 - Map 4 - Map 5 -Map 6 - Map 7 - Grant of Limited Exemption issuea 5/5/88 8 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/5/85 9 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/2/84 10 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/2/84 11 - Report of On-site Inspection dated 2/16/84 12 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 6/21/83 13 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 5/7/82 14 - Report of On-site Inspection dated 3/4/82 15 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/26/81 16 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/3/80 1:304 i i 0� 17 - Grant( of Limited Exemption issued 4/11/77 20 - 10 -run-t 01 Co M ll�carrrnQ r� cic, ic�t 0? 6ry�a_ SUIT, 12C sem. Z It Hcc /, _ 0'1 - 1305 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY In the Matter of the Determination of the Environmental, Social, Energy, and Economic Consequences of the Use of Inventory Site No. 294, the "Klippel Site" For Surface Mining FINDINGS Findings, Decision, And Program To Implement Goal 5 Klippel Site, hereinafter referred to as Site No. 294, also described as Tax ID No. 171113817, came before the Board of Commissioners ("Board") for hearing on July 19, 1989. On July 19, 1989, a preliminary decision was made on this site. By adoption of these Findings, Decision and Program to Implement Goal 5, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the Site No. 294, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations as Surface Mining ("SM"). For the reasons given below, the Board determines that Site No. 294 should be so classified. 1. Preliminary Findings 1 Site No. 294 was placed on the Deschutes County's Goal 5 Inventory for Mineral and Aggregate Resources by Ordinance No. 88-039 and as amended by Ordinance No. 90-025. Public hearings on the inventory were conducted by the Deschutes County Hearings Officer during June 1988. In September, 1988, the Hearings Officer made a recommendation to the Board on the County's inventory. The Board conducted hearings on the inventory on October 11, 1988 and on December 14, 1988 when the inventory was adopted. 2 Thereafter, pursuant to OAR 660-16-005 and 660-16-010, the County conducted further hearings to identify conflicts with the inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites, to determine the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy ("ESEE") consequences and to develop a program to achieve Goal 5. 3 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-000 et seg, these Findings, Decision and Program Implementing Goal 5 outline the County's reasons, and explain the County's program implementing Goal 5 and are made a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 1 i0 ,, 13OG 2. Applicable Criteria 1 The criteria applicable to the decision are Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rule, OAR 660-16-010 et seg. To the extent that other Statewide Planning Goals are applicable, appropriate findings have been made in Ordinance No. 90-029, which adopts the Findings, Decisions and Programs Implementing Goal 5 for each of the inventoried aggregate resource sites. By this reference said findings are incorporated herein. 2 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-005 and 660-16-010, once an aggregate and mineral resource site has been placed on the County's Goal 5 inventory, the County must identify conflicting uses which could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource. Both the impacts of the conflicting uses on the resource site and the resource's impacts on the conflicting uses must be considered in the determination of the ESEE consequences. The ESEE analysis enables the County to explain why decisions are made for specific sites. The Goal 5 rule then requires the County to develop a program to achieve the goal by resolving the conflicts in one of three ways: by protecting the resource site, by allowing conflicting uses fully, or by limiting conflicting uses. 3 By Ordinance No. 90-014, the County amended the Deschutes County surface mining ordinance, Ordinance No. PL -15. Ordinance No. 90-014, incorporated herein by reference. This ordinance authorizes the development and use of inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites in accordance with appropriate standards. It also adopts the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone ("SMIA") which has application to all properties located within one-half mile of the boundary of an inventoried surface mining resource site (the "impact area"). The SMIA zone regulates uses within the impact area to reduce or resolve conflicts with inventoried surface mining sites. 4 Based on the ESEE analysis of Site No. 294, as detailed below, a program to achieve Goal 5 has been developed to balance the ESEE consequences so as to allow the conflicting uses, but in a limited way in order to protect the aggregate resource site to the desired extent. A 660-16-010(3) decision has been made. Ordinance No. 90-014 implements this decision by designating the allowed uses or activities permitted outright or conditionally, and the specific standards and limitations applicable to such uses or activities on Site No. 294 and in the impact area. 3. Exhibits 1 Prior to the hearing on Site No. 294, a staff report was prepared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflicting resources and uses. The staff report identified conflicting resources and uses, their impacts, and evaluated the ESEE consequences of protecting the aggregate resource or in the alternative of protecting the conflicting resources or uses. I () 1 -^ 1307 2 At the hearings on Site No. 294, testimony was received from the owner/operator as well as from other interested members of the public. Expert testimony was received on the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource, as well as on the ESEE consequences associated with the protection of the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. 3 The owner/operator submitted a surface mining plan detailing the operation, extraction and reclamation of the aggregate resource at Site No. 294. 4. Inventory 1 By Ordinance No. 90-025, Site No. 294 was placed on the County's Goal 5 Inventory for aggregate and mineral resources. By this reference, the Board incorporates the record, the Hearings Officer's report and the findings related to the inventory determination in Ordinance No. 90-025 of the County's Goal 5 aggregate resources. (Ordinance No. 90-025 is also incorporated by this reference). 2 Expert site-specific technical information was submitted for the inventory at Site No. 294 regarding the location of the aggregate resource, its quantity and its quality. 3 Based on that site-specific expert technical information on location, quantity and quality as detailed in this Section 4 and the findings for the overall inventory adopted in Ordinance No. 90- 025, the Board accepts the Hearings Officer's determination that Site No. 294 is a very significant site in the County's resource inventory. 4 The Board finds that the location component of the Goal 5 inventory decision includes a determination of the physical location of the resource on site, i.e., the area and dimensions of the resource location at the site and the location of the resource vis-a-vis its market destination. The latter is principally included in the determination of the site's significance. 5 The Board finds that Site No. 294 is located 5.8 miles from the City of Bend and 4.7 miles from Tumalo. It consists of approximately 162.4 acres. The site has access to Johnson Road, a county rural arterial. The property is generally flat upland pasture with aggregate material existing under a soil layer. 6 Site No. 294's geographic location places it in close proximity to the County's major aggregate market area, i.e. the Bend urban area. The Board finds that the cost of transporting the aggregate resource is an important component in its overall cost. The Board finds that the cost of transporting aggregate is approximately .25 per ton mile and that a haulage distance of 10-15 miles from the market area is the maximum area for which these 3, 13 0 resources can be commercially usable. Based on the cost of transportation, the Board finds that it is appropriate to consider market location factors in determining relative significance given that, unlike other Goal 5 resources, the significance of aggregate resource is measured largely by its commercial value. Market location factors include proximity to urban areas and to transportation corridors. The close proximity of Site No. 294 to the resource's major market area, and its adequate access to a transportation corridor, is a important positive factor in the determination of the site's significance. 7 With respect to the location of the resource on site, the Board accepts the expert testimony of Century West Engineering Corporation ("Century West") which documented an on-site technical investigation of the location of the resource on site as well as the resource's quantity and quality. Century West's expert analysis included test pit excavations, material identification and assessment, and quantity calculations. The Board accepts and believes the Century West reports of January 25, 1988 and February 2, 1988 which document the location and quantity of the resource at Site No. 294. The location of the resource is substantiated by numerous test pits which were excavated on the site to explore the subsurface conditions. Twenty separate test pits were excavated over the surface mining site. The location of the test pits and excavation depths are documented in the Century West reports. The subsurface investigation was completed in two separate steps. The first investigation (January 25, 1988 report) explored the subsurface conditions in the northern and northeastern part of the site to be mined, consisting of 18 acres (Area 1). Thirteen separate test pits were excavated to a depth of 8.5 feet to 16.5 feet below the ground surface. The Board finds that Century West's analysis was a comprehensive review of the subsurface conditions found in Area 1. The Board finds that beneath an overburden of silty sand averaging 2.2 feet, a gravel strata exists below the surface which extends to depths of 7 feet to 11.5 feet with the average thickness of the gravel strata being 7.7 feet. Beneath the gravel strata, there exists a cemented silty sandy gravel or gravelly silty sand. 8 The Board accepts Century West's determination that the gravel strata is a good source of aggregate resource including gravel, cobbles and sand. The Board further accepts Century West's estimate of the quantity of the aggregate in its January 25, 1988 report which was calculated on the basis of the average thickness of aggregate at 7.7 feet and an average overburden thickness of 2.2 feet, resulting in an aggregate resource estimate of 223,600 cubic yards of aggregate resource including 157,000 cubic yards of gravel and 66,600 cubic yards of sand. The Board agrees with the Hearings Officer's finding that Century West's quantity estimates are conservative because the entire thickness depth of the subsurface aggregate strata in Area 1 could not be reached in all the test pits due to the limited reach of the back hoe, and that it is 4 `s 0l - 1303 likely that more aggregate is available than estimated by Century West. 9 In its February 2, 1988 report Century West documented a subsurface evaluation of an area consisting of 47 acres in the south and central part of the site (Area 2). The Century West report for Area 2 is accepted by the Board. This investigation included the excavation of seven test pits to depths ranging from 5.5 feet to 13.0 feet below the ground surface. The Boards finds that beneath an overburden of silty sand averaging 2.5 feet in thickness, a gravel strata is the primary unit throughout the test pit depth. The gravel strata begins at a depth of 1.5 feet to 3.5 feet below the surface and extends to depths of 5 feet to 12.5 feet. The Board finds that the average thickness of the gravel strata is 7.3 feet. The Board accepts Century West's conclusion that the subsurface gravel strata is a good locational source for aggregate resource. The Board further accepts Century West's estimate of the quantity of the aggregate in Area 2 which was calculated on the basis of the average thickness of gravel of 7.3 feet and an average overburden thickness of 2.5 feet, resulting in an aggregate resource estimate of 554,000 cubic yards of aggregate material including 443,000 cubic yards of gravel and 111,000 cubic yards of sand. The Board accepts the Hearings Officer's finding that the total aggregate quantity in Area 2 may exceed Century West's estimate because the total thickness of the gravel strata was not determined in every test hole due to the limited reach of the backhoe. On the basis of the documentation of Century West's subsurface evaluation, the Board accepts Century West's report as a comprehensive review of the subsurface conditions and accepts its expert estimate that Area 2 contains 554,000 cubic yards of aggregate. 10 The Board recognizes that the County's consulting geologist Robert S. Deacon, retained by the County to review specific aggregate sites, concluded that Site No. 294 contained a greater volume of aggregate resource than that estimated by Century West. On the basis of his review of the expert reports and a site visit, consulting geologist Deacon estimates a total aggregate resource quantity of 922,000 cubic yards at Site No. 294. Mr. Deacon's calculation of a higher estimate of total aggregate resource is based on planimeter survey results of photograph of the surface area using the average thickness of the aggregate strata from the Century West reports. 11 The Board finds that Century West's estimate of 777,600 cubic yards is based on site-specific evaluation of test pits conducted in the areas to be mined. While the planimeter survey results from Mr. Deacon suggest a higher estimate of aggregate resource, the Board accepts the results of the on-site technical evaluation completed by Century West which resulted in a quantity estimate of 777,600 cubic yards. By this reference the Board incorporates the Hearings Officer's report and findings herein. 5 of 1310 12 The Board also recognizes that a report from Mr. Edward Groh addressed the quantity of the aggregate resource on Site No. 294 and concluded that the site contained 4,159,000 cubic yards of the resource. This report, undated, is not supported or substantiated with field notes of test pit logs and does not contain any data analysis supporting. the volume estimate. The Board accepts the Hearings Officer's finding that the Groh report is not sufficiently substantiated to serve as a reasonable estimate of the aggregate resource. 13 The Board also recognizes that a report was submitted by H.G. Schlicker & Associates (Schlicker) which presents an evaluation of the aggregate resource at Site No. 294 based on a review of some of the technical reports evaluating the aggregate resource on site. The Schlicker report questions the reliability and accuracy of the Groh report as the basis for determining the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource. The Schlicker report notes that the Groh report does not contain laboratory data or test pit logs to support the aggregate resource estimate. The Schlicker report does not review the Century West reports or the report of the county's consulting engineer. Because the Board is not accepting the Groh report as substantiated expert testimony on the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource inventory, and because the Schlicker report does not include an on-site technical subsurface evaluation on the location, quality or quantity of the site's aggregate resource, or review the documentation from Century West provided for in their reports, the Board does not believe that the Schlicker report provides substantiated technical evidence on the resource inventory. 14 With respect to the quality of the aggregate at Site No. 294, the Board accepts the uncontroverted expert report of Century West which documented the results of durability and soundness tests on the resource at Site No. 294 (June 3, 1988 report). The test results of the sample aggregate from the test pit samples from the site document that the aggregate quality at Site No. 294 was tested by the commercial testing methods for abrasion, degradation and soundness. The Board accepted these testing standards for aggregate material as established by the Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Division (ODOT) in Ordinance No. 90-025 (finding No. 248, Ordinance No. 90-025 incorporated herein by reference). The Board accepts the conclusion of Century West in their report of June 3, 1988 that the aggregate samples from Site No. 294 satisfy the requirements for quality adopted in Ordinance No. 90-025. 15 In determining the quality of the resource at Site No. 294 relative to other aggregate resource sites in the county, the Board incorporates its finding regarding the standards of relative aggregate quality as set forth in Ordinance No. 90-025, Findings No. 24 and 27. Those findings establish the categories of the aggregate resource quality under ODOT standards and defines the quality categories established by the County in determining 6 relative quality significance of aggregate resource sites in the inventory. Based on the testing of the aggregate resource at Site No. 294, as referenced above in finding 4.15, the Board finds that the aggregate resource at Site No. 294 is "excellent," meaning "of superior grade." The Board finds that 34% of the county's available inventory of aggregate is of excellent quality and finds that the superior grade quality of the aggregate at Site No. 294 is significant relative to other aggregate resources in the County. (Ordinance 90-025, incorporated herein by this reference.) 16 In determining the significance of the quantity of the resource at Site No. 294 relative to other aggregate resource sites in the County, the Board finds that the County's annual aggregate demand is 2 million cubic yards. (Ordinance No. 90-028, incorporated herein by this reference.) The county's inventory process has resulted in an available inventory of approximately 45 million cubic yards of aggregate which is adequate for the 20 year planning period. Approximately 6.2 million cubic yards of that inventory is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend urban area, the major market for aggregate product. Of that, only approximately 1.3 million cubic yards, including Site No. 294, is of excellent quality. (See, Exhibits G and H of Ordinance No. 90-025.) While the Board recognizes that additional aggregate is located inside the cities' urban growth boundaries, that resource was not a part of the county's inventory process. .The Board finds that Site No. 294 is a significant quantity of superior grade aggregate and that its relative significance for quantity is enhanced by its close proximity to the major commercial market. 17 Based on the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource at Site No. 294, the Board finds that Site No. 294 is the 13th most significant site in the county's overall aggregate inventory. (Exhibit H, Ordinance No. 90-025). 5. Site Conditions 1 Site No. 294 is owned by CLR, Inc., an affiliate of Bend Aggregate & Paving Co. The property consists of approximately 162.4 aces. It is zoned Surface Mining Reserve (SMR) and has been so zoned for several years. The State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries has issued a surface mining permit for Site No. 294. The site is 5.8 miles from Bend and 4.7 miles from Tumalo, lying near Johnson Road and the partially developed Klippel Ranch and Saddleback subdivisions. The site is 4.7 miles from the Bend Aggregate Paving Co. crushing operation located on U.S. Highway 20 in Tumalo. 2 Site No. 294 is a relatively flat drainage plateau with sands and gravel under a soil layer. It is predominantly open pasture with areas of pine, juniper and sage brush. It is undeveloped, except for ranch buildings on the northern end of the property, a powerline on the eastern edge of the property, and the Tumalo irrigation ditch on the westerly boundary. The site is 7 t l - 13:12 lower in elevation than all the surrounding terrain and there are no special views from the site. 6. Vicinity Conditions 1 The general vicinity of the property is bounded by Johnson Road on the west and Tumalo Creek canyon on the east. Johnson Road, a county arterial, is not visible from Site No. 294 because of a buffer of trees east of Johnson Road and west of the site. Access to and from Johnson Road is presently available along Buck Drive. A new paved access road will be built to access the mining site so that the existing roadway access used by area residents will not be used by traffic associated with the mining activity. A road access permit from the Deschutes County Department of Public Works has been issued for the new access to Site No. 294. 2 Within the general vicinity of Site No. 294 there are areas of developed or partially developed residential subdivisions. An existing surface mine is located to the east of Site No. 294, across Tumalo Creek. The other mine has intermittent mining and processing of aggregate material. 7. Mining and Reclamation Plan 1 The Board finds that a proposed surface mining operational and reclamation plan has been submitted by the owner/operator for Site No. 294. The Board accepts the site's proposed mining operational plan, including excavation, transport to the permanent crusher area on-site, crushing, screening and reclamation, along with testimony received in the record, as the basis for analyzing the impacts and ESEE consequences. This section of the findings detail the proposed operational plan. 2 The areas to be mined are Area 1 in the northeast portion of the site and Area 2 in the southerly portion of the site. The remaining acreage will be left in its natural condition. The operational plan provides for the mining of approximately 5 acres of the site each year, yielding approximately 60,000 cubic yards of aggregate on an annual basis. At any one time only three percent of the total site will be mined. A crusher is proposed to be located at a permanent location on the site at the northwest corner of the property. The crusher area is proposed to be screened by earthen berms to mitigate noise impacts. The reclamation process will occur annually in 5 -acre increments. 3 The method of excavation begins with the removal of the 2-3 feet of topsoil with a bulldozer. The bulldozer used in the excavation will be muffled in order to minimize the noise impact. The topsoil will be pushed into 10-15 foot berms around each 5 -acre area being excavated. The berms will provide a site and noise - obscuring buffer. Water spraying will be provided to curtail any 8 x l y fugitive dust resulting processes. U -1 from the excavation and -y 1313 transport 4 After the topsoil is removed, the aggregate material will be loaded by a front-end loader on trucks for transport to the crusher area. The permanent on-site crusher area is proposed to be approximately 4-5 acres in size. The site for the crusher is proposed to be approximately 20 feet lower than the existing ground level to the east and south and approximately 60 feet lower than the existing ground level to the west and north. A 50 -foot wide buffer strip of trees will remain along both sides of Klippel Road between the crusher site and the southern mining area. The crusher is proposed to be a portable unit consisting of a jaw, crusher, one cone crusher, two roll crushers, two to three screen decks and conveyors. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has issued an Air Contaminant Discharge Permit for the use of the crusher. 5 In Area 1 the excavation and removal of the aggregate to the proposed crusher site will proceed from the boundary of the proposed crusher area and continue in an easterly direction within the boundaries of Area 1. The depth of the excavation will be approximately 7 to 10 feet. The excavation, removal, and reclamation of Area 2 will proceed in the same manner, from north to south. 6 A paved access road is proposed to be constructed from Johnson Road to the proposed crusher area. This will be the route used by employees and trucks removing material from the site. The existing road that provides access to residences to the east and south of the site will not be used by traffic associated with the surface mining activity. 7 Approximately 60,000 cubic yards will be removed from the site each year. material will be removed during the spring, (April through October). Assuming 50,000 during this time frame of 140 working days, yards per day or 4.6 trips per hour in projected traffic inpact. (15 cubic yards is crushed at the site, 60 to 80 percent c toward Bend via Johnson Road. of aggregate products The majority of this summer, and fall months cubic yards is removed an average of 357 cubic a 10 -hour day is the Der trip). If material f the material will go 8 Reclamation will occur annually as each 5 -acre area is depleted. When the aggregate material is removed, the topsoil which has been stored in berms on the edge of the excavated area will be restored over the excavated area and fine graded with a motor grader. The area will then be seeded with grasses to restore the pasture environment and to produce enhanced feeding materials for wildlife. This reclamation work will proceed concurrently with mining. Following reclamation, the mined area will be a pasture slightly lower than the unmined areas at its perimeter, with boundary slopes not exceeding 3:1. 9 �A-:L O [.► l - 1314 8. Conflicts Analysis 1 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-005, the Board has identified conflicts with the inventoried aggregate resource at Site No. 294. The conflicting uses, i.e., those uses which, if allowed, could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource site, have been primarily identified by examining both the existing uses, and the uses allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the County for the site and the impact area. In addition, conflicting resource uses have been identified by a review of the other inventoried Goal 5 resources in the County's Comprehensive Plan for the site and the impact area. 2 The Board finds that the conflicting uses consist of 1) resource conflicts, i.e., other Goal 5 inventoried resources on the site and the impact area (the "resource conflicts"), and 2) uses which exist or are allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the County for the site and the impact area, (the "land use conflicts"). Resource Conflicts 3 With respect to the resource conflicts, the Board finds that a conflict exists between the inventoried aggregate resource and the Goal 5 inventory of the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, a designated wildlife habitat and area. The Board finds that Site No. 294 is within the designated Tumalo Winter Deer Range and that a conflict exists between the two Goal 5 resources. 4 The Board finds that Tumalo Creek is located on the eastern boundary of Site No. 294. It is characterized as a narrow, rocky stream in a deep canyon. Tumalo Creek is designated a waterway with a fish and wildlife habitat and riparian area in the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study (River Study). The Board finds that the designated resources of Tumalo Creek may be a resource conflict with the inventoried aggregate resource at Site No. 294. 5 The Board finds that one other Goal 5 resource inventoried by the County's Comprehensive Plan may conflict with the inventoried aggregate resource at Site No. 294. The County's Comprehensive Plan inventories "open space" and "areas of special concern" in Table 1, page 108 of its Plan. Site No. 294 is not inventoried as either "open space" or as an "area of special concern"; however, the Plan recognizes the general desirability of maintaining areas in their natural state, including areas designated for future aggregate extraction. The Plan provides that open space areas include a broad range of areas left in their natural state, and, as noted in the County's Comprehensive Plan at page 103, can include mineral and aggregate sites which are left in their natural state prior to productive mining. The Plan recognizes that, during mining operations, portions of the mining 10 i_ 4 L "O'l - 1 315 site may not normally be available as open space, but that such sites will be valuable as open space following mining reclamation. Maintaining the countryside in its natural state, including agricultural lands, pasture, and forested areas is recognized in the County's Plan as an important component of open -space planning. Thus, while Site No. 294 is not specifically inventoried as "needed" or "desirable" open space, as part of the county's inventory of "open space and areas of special concern," the Board accepts the staff report identifying "open space" as a resource conflict. 6 The Board finds that no other inventoried Goal 5 resource conflicts with the inventoried aggregate resource. Site No. 294 is not an inventoried "outstanding scenic view and site." The County Comprehensive Plan at page 108 inventories the "areas of special concern" wherein the County inventories its areas of special importance, outstanding, or unique scenic resources. The Board finds that the Goal 5 inventory of "outstanding scenic views and sites" as inventoried in the County's Comprehensive Plan does not include the area encompassing Site No. 294. As a result, the Goal 5 resource of "outstanding scenic views and sites" is not a conflicting resource use to the inventoried aggregate resource. 7 The Board accepts the Bancroft Appraisal Report, attached to the staff report, which states that "no special views" exist on the site, "other than the surrounding properties." The Board does not accept the staff report which lists "outstanding scenic views and sites" as an identified resource conflict for Site No. 294, because Site No. 294 is not so inventoried by the County's Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Conflicts 8 The Board finds that the potential for conflicting land uses exist with the inventoried aggregate resource. The potential conflicting land uses have been identified primarily by examining the uses allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the county on the site and in the impact area and by examining existing land uses. The Board finds that the zoning districts of Surface Mining ("SM"), Surface Mining Reserve ("SMR"), Rural Residential - 10 ("RR -10") and Exclusive Farm Use -20 ("EFU-20") are the broad zoning districts established by the County within the impact area of Site No. 294. These districts allow uses which conflict with the inventoried aggregate resource. The Board incorporates by reference the uses allowed outright and conditionally in those zoning districts as potential conflicting land uses with the inventoried resource site. (Ordinance No. PL -15, Sections 4.100, 4.110, 4.120 and 4.040.) The Board accepts the staff report reference to the adjacent zoning districts found on page 1 of the staff report, but does not accept the staff report's Appendix A as the identification of the relevant broad zoning districts, because Appendix A does not include the correct zoning districts as referenced on page 1 of the staff report. 11 _A -M 9 The Board accepts the staff report's identification of the existing conflicting land uses as the rural residences located in the Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) zone in the impact area. Within the impact area of Site No. 294 between Johnson Road and Tumalo Creek, there are approximately 108 vacant and improved residential parcels. As noted in the staff report, approximately 27 parcels are within 600 feet of the site, the remainder are located between 600 feet and 1/2 mile from the site. 9. Impact Analysis 1 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-005, once conflicting uses are identified that could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource site, the ESEE consequences of the conflicting uses must be determined. Both the impacts on the resource site and the conflicting uses must be considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. 2 Sections 9 through 13 analyze the ESEE consequences on the resource conflicts and on the land use conflicts from protecting the inventoried aggregate resource, and the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource from protecting the resource conflicts and land use conflicts. 3 The Board accepts the discussion in the staff report identifying the potential impacts of the inventoried aggregate resource on the resource conflicts and the land use conflicts. The impacts on the resource conflicts and land use conflicts are identified as dust, noise and human presence, transportation, water quality degradation, vegetation removal, degradation of soils and topographical changes. The Board incorporates herein its finding No. 30 from Ordinance No. 90-025. 10. ESEE Analysis - Resource Conflicts - Protecting the Aggregate Resource over the Resource Conflicts 1 This section of the findings analyzes the ESEE consequences on the resource conflicts from protecting the aggregate resource. Section 11 analyzes the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource from protecting the resource conflicts. 2 Environmental Consequences. With respect to the resource conflict of open space, the Board finds that the impacts of dust, noise and the changes in the landscape associated with the extraction of the aggregate resource will negatively affect the visual appearance of the open space resource because the area will not be left in its natural state; however, the Board finds that these impacts can be substantially mitigated so that the impact on the open space resource is not significant. The site is not visible from Johnson Road which has been identified as a Landscape Management Corridor. A 50 -feet wide buffer of pine and juniper trees on the east side of Johnson Road 12 Lol - 1317 screens the site from the road so that any change in the topography and vegetation associated with the surface mining activity will not be visible to those travelling on Johnson Road. Additionally, although the mining activity and its associated impacts will affect the visual nature of the open fields currently in existence, the impacts will be short-term. Surface mining is a transitional use, and the area will be reclaimed for open space resource use. By limiting the active mining site to 5 acres at any one time the visual effects of the surface mining activity will be reduced. Phasing will also minimize the amount of vegetation removal and the landscape changes which impact the open space resource. Further, ongoing concurrent reclamation, irrigation and planting will allow the depleted portions of the site to return to their productive capacity as open space in an accelerated fashion. Phasing of the mining operation will also minimize the impacts of dust and noise which impact the open space resource. By mining only 5 acres at a time, with concurrent reclamation, the disturbed areas of the site will be minimized which will reduce fugitive dust emissions. The Board finds that the fugitive dust emissions which could impact the visual appeal of the open space resource will also be minimized by the incorporation of a mining operational plan as proposed for the site. The plan provides for the construction of a new paved access road onto Johnson Road to reduce the dust generated by trucks entering Johnson Road. The operational plan also incorporates the use of watering during each stage of the mining operating - excavation, stockpiling, transportation on-site to the proposed crusher area, and at the crusher to minimize the generation of dust during operations. A DEQ Air Contaminant Discharge Permit has been obtained for the operation of the proposed crusher. The Board finds that the impact of noise on the open space resource can be minimized to some extent by the implementation of mitigation measures. The Board has considered the report from Van Gulik/Oliver, Inc. and Daly S. Standlee and Associates (Standlee) which conclude that with the implementation of mitigation measures, the noise from the surface mining operation can meet DEQ standards. However, to further protect the open space resource, the Board finds that on-site crushing, which generates the highest levels of noise of the various components of the operation, should not be permitted in order to protect the open space resource particularly in view of the fact that the aggregate material extracted at the site can be transported a relatively short distance to the Bend Aggregate crushing site in Tumalo. 10.2.1 With respect to the wildlife resource, the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, the Board finds that both positive and negative environmental consequences will result from the protection of the aggregate resource. The implementation of a wildlife management plan providing for enhanced wildlife forage and cover can mitigate against the impacts on the wildlife resource. Absent mitigation, impacts of dust, noise and human presence, landscape changes 13 io<t 1318 including vegetation removal and traffic which are associated with the surface mining activity negatively impact the wildlife resource. The increased traffic associated with the mining activity may increase the mortality rate of wildlife on the roadways. The impacts of noise and human presence, dust and changes to the topography including vegetation removal, may result in the displacement of wildlife from the area, resulting in overcrowding and increased competition for resources on adjacent areas. Food sources may be disrupted and cover may be destroyed. By implementation of wildlife management measures, the impacts of dust, noise and human presence and vegetation removal can be minimized so that the negative environmental consequences to the wildlife resource are not significant. The intermittent use of the site, on a seasonal basis, including the prohibition of on-site crushing will allow the wildlife resource to continue its use of the area without impact. The Board accepts the report of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) which proposed specific mitigation measures for the proposed surface mining activity at Site No. 294, including winter closure. The Board also has considered the report of Mr. Glenn R. Adams of Northwest Agri - Tech, Inc. (Adams) which addressed the impacts of noise and human presence on the conflicting resource use of wildlife habitat. The Board finds that the Adams report concluded that the surface mining activity would not have a significant undesirable effect on the Tumalo Winter Deer Range resource because Site No. 294 is located on the extreme eastern edge of the habitat area and comprises less than one-tenth of one percent of the Range and, because surface mining will occur on only one 5 acre portion of the site at any one time, the surface mining activity will affect only 75 acres of wildlife forage and cover (less than 0.067% of the Range) by the presence of equipment, noise and human activity. The Board finds that the forage and cover of the wildlife habitat will be enhanced during the mining operation so that the site can provide forage for greater numbers of wildlife both during and subsequent to the surface mining activity than is presently available to the wildlife habitat. The Board finds that the loss of forage from the area of active surface mining can be mitigated by the enhancement of forage on other portions of the site. The enhanced forage will be achieved by irrigation, cover plantings and spring wheat plantings as specified in the wildlife management plan. By employing these mitigation measures, the Board finds that the site can provide forage for 38 more wildlife during mining and for 167 more wildlife following site reclamation. 10.2.2 With respect to the resource conflict of Tumalo Creek, a designated waterway with fish and wildlife habitat and riparian area in the County's Plan, the Board finds that protecting the aggregate resource will not result in environmental consequences to that resource. The Tumalo Creek canyon is a steep j-01 -y 1319 canyon along the eastern boundary of the property extending over 100 feet in depth to the creek. No mining is proposed along the Tumalo Creek canyon. On the basis of a review of the mining proposal, ODFW has concluded that no adverse consequences will occur to the Tumalo Creek drainway or its fish resources. The Board accepts the report from ODFW that no adverse impacts to the fish, fish habitat or water quality in Tumalo Creek will result from the proposed mining at Site No. 294. The Board further accepts the report of CH2M Hill which evaluated the groundwater resources on the site and any potential off-site impacts. The Board finds that the shallow perched water area found on the site through excavation of test pits results from either water losses from Tumalo Irrigation's ditch or on-site irrigation. This perched water may feed on-site springs and springs to the east of the site. Recharge to the perched water zone decreased when irrigation was stopped. Any natural recharge of the perched water zone was inadequate to maintain consistent spring flow. The Board accepts the conclusion of CH2M Hill that water discharging from the on-site spring, even if capable of flowing into Tumalo Creek under certain conditions, cannot be considered a significant reliable source of water for Tumalo Creek if irrigation at the site is discontinued. The Board finds that irrigation has been discontinued at the site and that the on-site spring has stopped flowing. The Board finds that because the groundwater and on-site spring are not a significant source of water for Tumalo Creek, protecting the aggregate resource will not result in significant impacts to the creek's water quality or beneficial uses. 3 Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy consequences of protecting the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts would be both positive and negative. Energy consumption will be necessary to run the surface mining equipment on site. The Board finds that this expenditure of fuel will be necessary at any extraction operation and should not be considered a negative energy consequence. Fuel will also be needed to transport the aggregate product to the crusher and to its market destination. Given the location of Site No. 294 in close proximity to the major market area for aggregate, the expenditure of fuel necessary to transport the aggregate to its end use will not be significant relative to sites which are located a greater distance from the major market area. The Board finds that Site No. 294 is 5.8 miles from the major aggregate market demand, the Bend urban area. Of the County's available inventory of aggregate resources, only 5.5 million cubic yards are located within 10-15 miles of the major demand area. The Board finds that the energy consequence of transporting aggregate from resource sites in close proximity to its usage destination is a positive energy consequence relative to the fuel expenditures necessary to transport the resource from sites a greater distance from market. The Board finds that the utilization of aggregate resources near the major market area results in a positive energy consequence when compared to the necessary use of fuel to transport 15 101 - 13ZU aggregate resources from inventoried sites further away from its market area. Failure to protect aggregate resources in close proximity to the market area would result in significant negative energy consequences since additional energy consumption would be necessary to transport the aggregate resources located greater distances than Site No. 294 from the consumer market areas. The protection of the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts may result in negative energy consequence if the public is required to travel greater distances to view the wildlife habitat or open space resource. Because this site is not visible from Johnson Road, is a temporary use, and comprises only 1/10 of 1% of the winter deer range, the Board finds this energy consequence to be insignificant. 4 Social Consequences. Protecting the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts will have a short-term negative social consequence on the open space and wildlife resource. Dust, noise and human presence and changes in topography/landscape associated with the extraction of the aggregate resource will temporarily impair the use of the site as open space. The loss of visual appeal resulting from the changes in the site's natural state will be a negative social consequence. However, because the site is not visible from the transportation corridor, the significance of the visual impact is diminished. In addition, because the referenced impacts will also affect the wildlife resource, they may result in the negative social consequence of disrupting wildlife viewing opportunities. The Board finds that the implementation of wildlife management plan as referenced in Section 10 will mitigate for the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from protecting the resource. The Board finds that the wildlife habitat can be enhanced both during mining and after reclamation to increase the forage for wildlife, thereby offering the potential to maintain and enhance the wildlife viewing in the area. The Board further finds that the mining operational plans for phasing the mining operation, concurrent reclamation and the implementation of noise and dust mitigation measures as discussed in Section 10 will limit the impact on the visual appeal of the open space resource so that this impact is not significant. 5 Economic Consequences. The Board finds that positive economic consequences result from the -protection of the aggregate resource. Preserving the aggregate resource adds to the overall county supply which serves to maintain the cost of the resource within the County. In Ordinances No. 90-028 and 90-025, incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that the inventory of identified aggregate sites for sand and gravel is needed to meet the anticipated demand for the County's future. Failure to protect an adequate supply of the aggregate resource would result in the negative economic consequence of a higher cost for the resource and higher cost for its use in the development of the County. 16 The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource will result in accelerated deterioration of the roadways which bear the traffic associated with the surface mining activity. The cost of maintaining these roads is a negative economic consequence of preserving the aggregate resource. Because the aggregate resource is a necessary commodity for the development of the area, and transportation of the resource necessarily affects the transportation routes, preserving the aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area will result in net positive economic consequences by minimizing the extent of roadways that are impacted. Johnson Road, a County Rural Arterial, is a paved road with a width of 21-25 feet of hard surface pavement. It will serve as part of the transportation route for the aggregate mined at Site No. 294 to the Bend Aggregate crushing operation in Tumalo. While Johnson Road does not meet the full requirements of a modernized County Arterial, in structure or width, in the spring of 1988, Johnson Road received maintenance from the County Department of Public Works including patching, crack and chip sealing and shoulder widening to bring the road up to routine maintenance standards. The Board recognizes that the cost associated with maintenance of the transportation infrastructure can be significant. By Ordinance No. 90-014, the County has required that improvements or fees in lieu of improvements reflecting the pro rata share of the actual total cost of capital expenditures of the road improvements necessitated by or benefitting the surface mining operation can be transferred to the surface mining operator if the determination is made that the increased traffic on the road due to the surface mining activity will damage the road. The Board finds that any other negative economic consequences resulting from the protection of the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts are secondary. If the County were to experience a decline in tourism as a result of the failure to protect the resource conflicts at Site No. 294, that would be a negative economic consequence. The Board finds that Site No. 294 is not a significant portion of the wildlife resource and its value as a wildlife habitat is already affected by the presence of nuisances to the wildlife reducing its potential for wildlife habitat and tourism. The site is not visible to those travelling along Johnson Road. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource will not significantly affect the level of tourism in Deschutes County. 17 tt n 132,2 11. ESEE Analysis - Resource Conflicts - Protecting the Resource Conflicts over the Aggregate Resource 1 This section of the findings addresses the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource of protecting the conflicting resources. 2 Environmental Consequences. Protecting the conflicting resources over the aggregate resource would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. Full protection of the resource conflicts of wildlife habitat and open space would preclude surface mining. The impacts of dust, noise and human presence, traffic, vegetation removal -and changes in topography which are associated with the surface mining activity would be eliminated. However, not protecting the aggregate resource would preclude the opportunity for the enhancement of the wildlife forage and cover which would be attained as a part of the mining operation and ongoing reclamation plan. Further, negative environmental consequences to the resource conflicts would result from the extension of rural -residential uses or other conflicting uses in the area if the aggregate resource is not protected. Not preserving Site No. 294 for mining would mean that other types of uses conflicting with the inventoried resources could be introduced which would result in negative environmental consequences to the resource conflicts. 3 Energy Consequences. Protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would have negative energy consequences. The failure to protect aggregate resources which are located in close proximity to the market area involving diminished haulage distances to the major aggregate market areas would result in increased energy consumption to transport aggregate resources located further from the market area. The protection of the resource conflicts would have a positive energy consequence of allowing visitors or tourists to view these resources without expending additional fuel to travel further distances. However, given the small size of Site No. 294, its location at the extreme edge of the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, and the fact that it is not visible from the transportation route, the positive energy consequence from the protection of the resource conflicts is insignificant. 4 Social Consequences. The social consequences of protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would both be positive and negative. If the conflicting resource uses of open space and wildlife habitat were fully protected, it would eliminate the impacts associated with surface mining activities including dust, noise and human presence, traffic impacts, vegetation removal and soil/topographical changes because full protection of these resources over the aggregate resource would preclude surface mining. By eliminating those impacts which, in the absence of mitigation measures, result in negative social consequences to the resource uses by impairing the ability of 18 t 1323 people to view open space area and wildlife habitat, a positive social consequence results. On the other hand, preserving the resource conflicts will have a negative social consequence if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. The deterioration of the road infrastructure, inadequate aggregate to meet the demand for commercial, industrial or residential development, or having aggregate resource at an increased cost is a negative social consequence. An inability of the county to provide for the development needs of the county is a negative social consequence. Further, failure to preserve aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area will increase the overall cost of aggregate from inventories located further from the market area resulting in a negative social consequence. 5 Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would be negative. The Board finds that the failure to protect a sufficient supply of aggregate for the future growth of the County will result in increased cost for the resource. Increases in aggregate resource costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to be hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by the transportation costs. The overall County inventory for sand and gravel, excluding the material within the urban growth boundary which was not included in the County's inventory process, consists of approximately 44 million cubic yards of available aggregate. Based on an estimated 2 million cubic yard annual aggregate demand, (Ordinance No. 90-028, incorporated herein by this reference), the County's inventoried aggregate sites are sufficient to serve the County only for the 20 year planning period. Aggregate is a finite resource and failure to preserve sufficient quantities for future growth is not readily mitigated. 12. ESEE Analysis - Conflicting Land Uses - Protecting the Aggregate Resource over the Conflicting Land Uses 1 This section addresses the ESEE consequences on the conflicting land uses from protecting the aggregate resource. Both the impacts on the resource site and on the conflicting land uses are considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. 2 Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. In the absence of restrictions on the surface mining activity, the conflicting land uses would be adversely affected by the impacts of dust, noise, traffic impacts and changes to the landscape/topography associated with surface mining activities. The Board finds that the adverse environmental consequences to the conflicting land uses can be mitigated by the implementation of restrictions on the surface mining activity. Buffering to limit noise impacts, curtailment of dust emissions and limiting the 19` 0'1 - °1324 active mining area to five acres will significantly reduce the adverse environmental consequences on the conflicting land uses. In addition, restrictions on the hours and seasons of operation will likewise significantly reduce the adverse environmental consequences on conflicting land uses. The Board has considered the Standlee report which analyzed the noise impacts of the proposed surface mining operations on the existing conflicting land uses. The Board finds that the noise associated with the surface mining operation is reduced by muffling devices, natural and man-made berms and the distance between the noise source and the conflicting land uses. The Board finds that with implementation of the above -referenced noise mitigation measures, the noise impacts associated with the surface mining operation can meet DEQ standards. However, to further protect conflicting land uses, the Board finds that on-site crushing, which generates the highest level of noise of the various components of the operation, should not be permitted, in view of the proximity of the Bend Aggregate crushing operation at Tumalo. The Board finds that, due to close proximity of numerous existing dwellings to the proposed crusher site, the noise impacts of crushing on-site should be eliminated altogether, by requiring that crushing take place off-site. The Board recognizes that conflicting evidence regarding the availability of fill for man-made berms has been presented. According to a report prepared by Mr. Albert Duble, dated March 7, 1989, 16,700 cubic yards of fill are needed to construct a 10 foot high berm around each 5 -acre phase of the mining operation. Such a berm is called for in the Standlee report to mitigate noise impacts. Based on the Century West report referenced in Sections 4.7 to 4.14 herein, there is an average of between 2.2 and 2.5 feet of overburden in the areas to be mined. The Board finds that this quantity of overburden is sufficient to construct the man-made berms called for in the Standlee report. The Board recognizes that there is other conflicting evidence regarding noise, however the Board notes that the only evidence based on on-site testing is the Standlee report, which found that with the mitigation measures adopted in the operational plan, the surface mining activity meets DEQ noise standards. The Board accepts these findings and believes that, with mitigation, the noise impacts will not be significant. With respect to the impact of fugitive dust on the conflicting land uses, the Board finds that the implementation of operational measures will reduce the impact such that it is not significant. The operational plan provides for the control of dust during each stage of the mining operation, (Section 10 herein) and the Board believes that the proposed operational plan measures will serve to mitigate the impact of fugitive dust emissions so that this impact is not significant. 20 L01 - 13 Z5 The Board further finds that the surface mining operation will not result in adverse environmental consequences to the supply of water for the conflicting land uses. The Board finds that a community water system serves most of the residents in the area that uses a 795 foot deep well for a water source south of the site. The Board finds that this well penetrated earthen materials for a depth of 763 feet before encountering water. The Board finds that other wells in the impact area range in depth from 60 to 800 feet deep with all but three of the wells exceeding 300 feet. The Board finds that these wells withdraw water from deeper aquifers that have little or no hydraulic connection with a shallow perched water zone located on the site. The Board finds that only one well located to the south of the site has the potential for impact from the surface mining operation. It is a well 83 feet deep located to the south and east of Site No. 294.-- Because the well is open to all zones below 18 feet, it is difficult to determine which zones contribute water to the well. The Board finds that the static water level is 40 feet below the surface which suggests that the well has penetrated a water bearing zone below a boulder conglomerate extending 37 feet below ground. The Board accepts the conclusion from CH2M Hill that if dewatering of the project area is necessary, the water level in the conglomerate may be affected resulting in a decrease yield from the well from water bearing zones in the conglomerate. The Board finds that this potential is a negative environmental consequence. The Board accepts CH2M Hill's evaluation of this groundwater resource that the shallow perched zone results from both leakage of irrigation water from the Tumalo Irrigation canal west of the site and from flood irrigation of the site. The Board finds that flood irrigation of the site was terminated in 1988 and that a spring on the site which was recharged by the perched zone went dry. The Board finds that springs on property to the east of the site serve as the water supply for one residence. The Board accepts the report from CH2M Hill that the perched zone may recharge these springs, and that terminating flood irrigation on the site caused the flow of water to stop in the on-site spring. The Board also finds that terminating floor irrigation on-site did not cause any reported stoppage in the flow of water to off-site springs that serve the residence to the east of the site. As a result, the Board finds that protection of the aggregate resource is unlikely to affect significantly the availability of water in springs to the residence to the east of the site. The Board finds that the traffic associated with the surface mining operation will access the site under the terms of the operational plan by a new access road, permitted by the Deschutes County Public Works Department which will by-pass the access route presently utilized by the existing conflicting land uses in the area. The Board finds that providing for a separate access road from that used by area residents will reduce the traffic impacts on the conflicting land uses. 21 '01 ^ 13"G The Board further finds that the traffic from the surface mining operation will utilize Johnson Road for the transport of the aggregate resource to the Bend Aggregate crushing site in Tumalo. The Board finds that under the proposed operational plan, the traffic impact would be approximately 4-6 trucks per hour in a 10 -hour day. The Board finds that Ordinance No. 90-014 authorizes the County to require improvements or fees in lieu of improvements if improvements to the road are required as a result of the surface mining operation. Thus, the Board finds that the traffic impact of the surface mining activity to the users of Johnson Road, including bicycle traffic, can be mitigated, even if the traffic impact exceeds the projected level, by the improvements or by fees in lieu of improvement provisions of Ordinance No. 90-014. 3 Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in both positive and negative economic consequences. The Board recognizes that property owners adjacent to Site No. 294 as well as other surface mining sites have claimed that the protection of the aggregate resource adversely impacts the property values on adjacent properties. The Deschutes County Assessor's office has analyzed the property tax assessment values of specific parcels adjacent to and within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mining sites in order to evaluate whether protecting the aggregate resource causes a downward fluctuation in property values of adjacent parcels or nearby properties. The Board accepts the analysis of the Deschutes County Assessor's Office that there has been no evidence of decreased property assessment values on parcels adjacent to and within one-half mile of existing or proposed surface mining sites. The same analysis from the Deschutes County Assessor's office shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The Board accepts and believes the economic property value trending analysis from the County Assessor and finds that no significant negative economic consequence to the property values of the conflicting land uses results from the protection of the aggregate resource site. The Board finds that protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in the increased cost of maintaining the transportation infrastructure caused by the higher rate of deterioration on the roads which bear the traffic associated with the surface mining activity. For Site No. 294, its close proximity to the market area minimizes this negative economic consequence and, the preservation of aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area results in net positive economic consequences by minimizing the need to maintain the transportation infrastructure which would be utilized by the transportation of the aggregate resource located further from the market demand area. By Ordinance No. 90-014, the County has required that improvements or fees in lieu of improvements reflecting the pro rata share of the actual total cost of capital expenditures of the 22 I ()"'$'I 13 road improvements necessitated by or benefitting the surface mining operation can be transferred to the surface mining operator if a determination is made that the increased traffic on the road due to the surface mining activity will damage the road. Preservation of the aggregate resource adds to the overall supply of aggregate which serves to maintain an economical cost of the resource in the County. Failure to protect an adequate supply would result in negative economic consequences. Protecting the aggregate resource will have some short- term negative impacts on the ability to utilize the site for other uses. However, surface mining is a transitional use and by preserving the aggregate resource site for resource production, the site is still able to provide economic benefits to the community presently and in the future. The Board finds that the value of using the site for other uses such as farming and agriculture prior to mining, and its economic value for other uses following mining, is a positive economic consequence to protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses. 4 Social Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses would result in both positive and negative social consequences to the conflicting land uses. The impacts of dust, noise, increased traffic and aesthetic considerations related to the topographical/landscape changes associated with surface mining would adversely affect the scenic amenities, liveability and social character of the conflicting land uses. The significance of the negative social consequences of these impacts on these conflicting land uses can be substantially diminished by the implementation of dust emission controls, buffers from noise impact and operational restrictions on the surface mining activity. Buffering to reduce noise and visual impacts, the placement of berms around the active mine area to screen the view of the active mine site area from existing land use conflicts, along with the construction of a new access road bypassing the roads presently used by the residents in the area will reduce impacts on the liveability of scenic amenities and the quality of life in the area. The Board further finds that the recreational opportunities offered by Tumalo Creek will not be impacted by the surface mining operation so that no negative social consequence will result. No mining is proposed immediately adjacent to the Tumalo Creek canyon and the Board accepts the report of ODFW that no adverse consequences to the Tumalo Creek drainway or its fish resources will occur as a result of the surface mining operation. Preserving of the aggregate resource serves to protect the area from additional development which could otherwise have negative social consequences to the existing conflicting uses by changing the social character of the area. 23 _; . 5 Enerav Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in positive energy consequences. Although increased energy consumption will be necessary at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to operate the surface mining equipment and fuel necessary to transport the aggregate product to the end use, the location of Site No. 294, near the major aggregate market relative to other aggregate sites located further from the market area makes the expenditure of energy for transportation insignificant. Utilizing aggregate resources near the major market areas results in positive energy consequences when compared to the energy utilization by inventoried sites further from the market area. Failure to protect the aggregate resources in close proximity to the market would result in significant negative energy consequences since additional energy consumption would be necessary to transport the aggregate resources located greater distances than Site No. 294 from the market area. 13. ESEE Consequences - Conflicting Land Uses - Protecting the Conflicting Land Uses over the Aggregate Resource 1 This section of the findings addresses the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource of protecting conflicting land uses. Both the impacts on the resource and the conflicting uses are considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. 2 Environmental Consequences. Protecting conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. Allowing the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would preclude the enhancement of the site for other resources, which is a planned component of the surface mining reclamation. The wildlife resource at Site No. 294 will be enhanced as a result of mining and reclamation. Better forage can be introduced that will enhance the site for deer winter range or other wildlife. Adding new cover will also enhance the wildlife use of the area. Allowing the conflicting land uses could have the long-term adverse environmental consequence of reducing available food and cover for wildlife, thereby limiting the overall supply of wildlife habitat in the area. This in turn would increase competition for the adjoining habitat. Allowing the conflicting land uses with their associated human presence, noise and dogs would increase both the mortality rate of the wildlife due to the increased traffic in the area generated by the conflicting land uses and the harassment of wildlife by the dog and human presence. On the other hand, protecting the conflicting land uses and precluding surface mining at the site would have the environmental consequence of eliminating the impacts of dust, noise, traffic impacts and topographical and landscape changes associated with surface mining which, in the absence of restrictions on operation and/or mitigation, can be a negative environmental consequence. 24 , 1011 - 1329 3 Social Consequences. Protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would have negative social consequences on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. An adequate supply of aggregate is needed to maintain the County road transportation infrastructure and to permit the .development of housing and commercial/industrial uses. Negative social consequences to the County will result if the building costs increase from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 4 Energy Consequences. Allowing the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource at Site No. 294 would have a negative energy consequence because aggregate resources necessary for County supply would have to be obtained from sites at a greater distance from the market area. This would increase the energy consumption necessary for transportation of the aggregate resource and the cost of maintaining the transportation system bearing the burden of that increased traffic. Allowing the conflicting land uses would increase the traffic using the county's transportation infrastructure. The development of conflicting uses with a greater life span than surface mining would have a greater long-term negative energy consequence than surface mining. 5 Economic Consequences. Protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource can have the effect of preventing or limiting the utilization of the aggregate resource at the site due to the impacts of noise, dust, traffic and aesthetic considerations related to the topographical and landscape impacts which constrain surface mining activities located near conflicting land uses. The Board finds that the failure to protect a sufficient supply of aggregate resources will have negative economic consequences. An inadequate supply of the resource will result in increased cost. To the extent that aggregate would need to be hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by the transportation costs. Allowing the conflicting land uses would permanently preclude utilization of the resource. 14. Program to Achieve Goal 5 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-010, the Board finds that there is adequate information on the location, quality and quantity of the inventoried aggregate resource, as well as on the nature of the conflicting land uses, resource conflicts, and ESEE consequences for Site No. 294. Based on the determination of the ESEE consequences, the County has developed a program to achieve Goal 5. The Board finds that based on the ESEE consequences, both the aggregate resource and the resource conflicts are important relative to one another. The ESEE consequences should be balanced so as to protect the aggregate resource to the extent referenced herein and to limit the resource conflicts so as to protect the aggregate resource to the desired extent. Accordingly, the Board 25 j0-1 -, 1 3 ,3 0 finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), protection of the resource conflicts shall be allowed but in a limited way so as to protect the aggregate resource site. Based on the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting land uses and protecting the inventoried aggregate resources, the Board finds that with respect to existing conflicting land uses, both the aggregate resource and the existing conflicting land uses are important relative to each other. Accordingly, the Board finds that, pursuant to OAR 660-16-0010, it will protect the aggregate resource and the existing conflicting land uses in favor of each other. The Board finds that existing conflicting land uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. The Board finds that the value of potential future development of conflicting land uses to the inventoried aggregate resource are not important enough to limit the protection of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future conflicting land uses, if any, can be accommodated on other similarly zoned lands in the County. To implement this decision Site No. 294 will be zoned for surface mining ("SM"), subject to the following ESEE conditions: (1) Allow surface mining activities in accordance with the site operational plan, excluding a crushing operation on-site. (2) The hours of operation are restricted to 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. (3) That a winter closure plan be finalized by the owner/operator and ODFW. (4) That DEQ noise standards be met. (5) That water rights stay on the property and be put to a beneficial use for at least five years after the surface mining operation. (6) That excavation be limited to five acres at any one time with concurrent reclamation. (7 ) That the slope on the reclaimed land be no more than 5:1. (8) That the reclaimed land be graded to allow irrigation. (9) That vegetative screening be supplied to the greatest extent possible and in the best available manner. NEI (10) That public works be consulted regarding the cumulative impacts on Johnson Road due to mining activities on the site and other sites. (11) That a new access be constructed at the northwest portion of the site. Resource Conflicts. The Board finds that the ESEE conditions on the use of the aggregate resource limits the protection of the aggregate resource in order to protect the resource conflicts. The Board further finds that such mitigation will not prevent the county from achieving its goal of protecting the aggregate resource, since mining will be permitted subject to ESEE conditions. Aggregate Resource. The Board finds that the aggregate resource will be protected by zoning Site No. 294 for surface mining ("SM") to allow for surface mining operations. The Board finds that Ordinance No. 90-014 allows mining activities as permitted or conditional uses in the SM zone. Conflicting uses such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit the surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the SM zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral and aggregate resources is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of the protecting sufficient mineral and aggregate resources to meet the County's aggregate needs. Conflicting Land Uses. The Board finds that the imposition of the Surface Mining Impact Area ("SMIA") combining zone on the impact area as set forth in Ordinance No. 90-014 will restrict conflicting land uses and further protect the aggregate resource. The impact area surrounding the SM zone on Site No. 294 is so designated. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting land uses as follows: (1) New conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to the SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activity; and (2) In all cases of new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses, such uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. 27 1(j'I - 13:3 c The Board finds that such provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflicting future land uses. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the requirement that newly -sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, and adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations, as provided for in Ordinance No. 90-014. The Board finds that in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning Site No. 294 for surface mining and protecting the site from future conflicting land uses, satisfies the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resource to meet the needs of the County. W56/01/0006/08 28 _ 3 101 - 13:33 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 296 Site Number 296, occupying tax lot 2702 in Township 17 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 22, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 296 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located in the southwest quarter of section 22 in township 17, range 11, in an area located off Johnson Road at Shevlin Park. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned SMR, F-2, WA and OS&C. This site is listed in the staff report as being 25 acres of a 500 -acre parcel. The Board is zoning 40 acres based upon area maps submitted by the applicant. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 10:1 - 13:34 mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of excellent quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is comprised of rolling hills which slope down to Tumalo Creek. There are no special views, and the site is located in an area of active logging. This site is naturally vegetated with trees, sagebrush and grasses. The subject site has been used in the past as a cinder pit. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route, with medium frequency of use, and medium use by sensitive raptors. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject property is near Shevlin Park which is zoned OS&C. The adjacent OS&C zoning indicates important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 i01 ,. 1335 2. Impacts on deer would include further destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by continued surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and continued human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. 3. Impacts on raptor use would include destruction of cover for the raptors and displacement and destruction of food sources, increased human presence and noise, all of which would tend to drive raptors away from the immediate area. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the surrounding area consist of forest uses and Shevlin Park. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the OS&C zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 i0l ^ 133E 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 i01 133_f deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Noise from mining in the area will have an impact on Shevlin Park. However, this is an intermittent impact and mitigated by the fact that the site is located approximately one-half mile from the wes- terly boundary of the park. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. ��►� � 1333 Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 i0l - 1333 face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource, and this site has a large quantity of cinders. C. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 A-1 1340 properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board -finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 101 - 1341 designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every cinder site over which the County has land use juris- diction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 { 101 -, 1342 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 i0l - 1343 transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. The conditions set forth by the ODFW in their letter of October 10, 1989 identifying recommending this site for deer winter range and special wildlife considerations. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. The Board further finds that SM zoning shall be applied only to the southwest quarter of Section 22 Township 17 Range 11. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the winter processing limitations at the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 296 r a4 l b,T- A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #296 MAP DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION/MAP SHEET TABLE REGARDING SURFACE MINING LOCATIONS GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/10/87 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/4/86 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/9/85 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/1/84 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 8/26/83 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/20/82 REPORT OF ON—SITE INSPECTION DATED 12/4/81 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/7%88 APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAP PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MYLAR on t nips S Uzi c Cfmm: cm,�.:�—��s ^1345 A 01 13 4 6 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 297 Site Number 297, occupying a portion of tax lot 100 in Township 17, Range 11 E.W.M., Sections 22 and 23, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 26, 1989 the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 297 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located East of Johnson Road near The Farm subdivision. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned SMR and RR -10 with an LM and WA combining zone. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10 with an LM and WA combining zone. (The Board notes that the staff report summary of the zoning is in error.) This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 iot 13d In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife concerning wildlife values, from Don and Linda Trujillo, land owners in the nearby subdivision, Don Ring, owner of the Farm subdivision, Rick Amonson, regarding the history of the site, and Ted Young for Crown Pacific. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 60,000 cubic yards of cinders of poor quality. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located east of Johnson Road across the road from The Farm subdivision. Access onto the site is by cindered roads. The site is located on the southern flanks of Tumalo Butte and slopes down to the south. The site contains an existing cinder pit excavated into the side of Tumalo Butte. The rest of the site is natural. The site is naturally vegeta- ted with pine trees, sagebrush and grasses. The area is within the Tumalo deer winter range. The site is located in a suburban residential and mining are to the west of Bend. There are residential properties within a half mile in all directions. The site has low visibility from the surrounding residential properties. To the south is the Farm subdivision, which is currently sparsely settled with average quality homes. To the north on the north flanks of Tumalo Butte is the Saddleback subdivision. These homes have no direct view of the site, but are within half a mile. To the west is Johnson Road and residential acreage properties. These homes are within a half mile of the site. Shevlin Park is just within a half mile to the South. The site has apparently be used as a source for building logging roads in the area. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a the Tumalo deer winter range. The site is listed on the Comprehensive 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 0-1 - 1343 plan as being within the deer winter range. The WA zoning likewise indicates important deer range values. 2. Scenic values. The LM indicates high concern Road. In addition, the to the south. Although space values, the RR -10 values. Conflicts zoning adjacent to the site for scenic values along Johnson site is close to Shevlin Park the staff report indicates open zoning does not support such Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust from would most likely be visible within the LM zone along Johnson Road and from Shevlin Park. (2) Impacts on deer would include further destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by continued surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and continued human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. These conflicts would not operate at a high level at this site were it to remain operating at its current low level of use. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, would impact 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 8 i �1,1 - 1 343 wildlife, [open space] and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the SMR and RR -10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the SMR and RR -10 zones would include: (1) At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SMR zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture or forestry may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated por- tions of the site. Uses in the RR -10 zone would also be conflicting in this regard, except for farms uses on unexcavated portions of the site. (2) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and off-road vehicle tracks. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly on residential uses. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The public testimony included testimony that the area bounding Johnson Road was designated for protection of scenic values and that permitting surface mining in the area would be inconsistent with that designation. Don Ring testified that in developing The Farm subdivision, he had made a considerable investment in underground utilities to protect scenic values. Furthermore, mining and the traffic impacts associated with it would not be compatible with the adjacent subdivision. Other testimony was received from 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 3 r i oll. - 1350 recent purchasers of residential lots in the Farm sub- division, citing incompatibility of the surface mine with residential uses from the standpoint of noise, and with scenic values. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts, the conflicting uses in the zone are as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are a number of existing homes within close proximity to the site and there are active plans to construct additional homes in The Farm subdivision that would not be compatible with surface mining uses. As for the other potential conflict- ing uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources could be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and visually disturb the landscape. Such impacts could spoil the attributes leading owners of adjacent rural residential properties to live where the do. Many people prefer to live in rural subdi- visions due to the wildlife and scenic resources. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued or increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. There is some degree of need in the County for cinders and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that the cinders at this site have been used primarily for logging road maintenance and construction, that this site is located in close proximity to Johnson road and consequently that the site would be conveniently situ- ated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway main- tenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 IQ -1 1352 Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufa- cturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Des- chutes County has a new policy that states that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. There- fore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect ag- gregate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- s - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 i s • LO.1 1353 life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the conflicting natural resources are more important than the cinder resource based on the following facts: (a) This cinder source is of poor quality and is a small quantity site; failure to zone this site will not adversely affect the supply of cinders in the county; (b) There are other cinder sources in the County that the County is protecting that can supply cinders for road maintenance needs; (c) Although the site is well located to provide cinders for maintenance of Johnson Road, the site has not been used for the purpose of supplying cinders for public roadway purposes; there are other sites zoned for surface mining convenient to the area that can serve that purpose, including the sites near Shevlin Park (site no. 296) and Laidlaw Butte in Tumalo (site no. 357); (e) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (f) The scenic views along Johnson Road and from Shevlin Park are enjoyed by many people. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. The Board overrules the staff report in this regard. It appears that the staff recommendation was based in part upon an erroneous determination of the amount and quality of the cinder resource at the site. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 f 1354 Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity could be high in this case due to the fact that it would be located immediately adjacent to a subdivision. Public testimony from nearby property owners illuminated concerns about the noise impacts of surface mining and its impact on the scenery surrounding their properties. Some of 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 those consequences have already been imposed upon the surrounding properties due to the fact that this is an existing mine. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby roadways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. On the other hand, much of the area within one-half mile of the mine has already been developed or planned for develop- ment. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The protection of conflicting land uses could have the effect of causing higher transportation costs to the extent that denial of mining approval would cause cinders to be hauled to their point of use from more remote sites. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, there is an added cost of .22 per ton mile from extraction sites to the point of use. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. This particular site, at 60,000 cubic yards, represents a small percentage of the total cinders available in the County. (The Board notes that.the staff report is in error in this regard.) 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by develop- ment where there is none now. In this case, however, development has already occurred to the north of the site in the Saddleback development and has begun to occur in the Farm subdivision. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater distan- ces. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Mineral Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that relative to one another the conflicting uses are more important than the cinder resource. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 (b) Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. With that commitment comes economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who live in and patro- nize those uses; Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will protect fully the conflicting uses at and surround- ing the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting resources and uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting mineral resources, as the Board finds that there has never been a concern about the adequacy of cinder availability in the County and that it has chosen to zone and protect 24 cinder sites representing 21,830,000 cubic yards of cinders. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 297 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #297 �f 1353 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. CROWN PACIFIC INVENTORY SHEET 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS AND STAFF REPORT 4. STAFF COMMENTS 5. NOTIFICATION MAPS 6. MYLAR 7. LETTER FROM DON & LINDA TRUJILLO 8/2/89 g 3cavd o6 Kacicx m'►nx+,ks 9. emrd „L Cc„nr,r,-i,ss►c�,t cs deusion r 5 �� F ill - 1353 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 303 Site Number 303, occupying a portion of tax lot 300 in Township 17, Range 12, Section 7, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 303 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located off Johnson Road one mile southwest of Tumalo State Park. The site is owned by Cascade Pumice and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20, MUA-10 and UAR-10. This site was identified as containing aggregate and pumice resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of State Parks and Recreation 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 1360 (State Parks), the operator of the site, the Coalition for the Deschutes and neighborhood residents. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has two types of mineral resources: 750,000 cubic yards of good quality pumice; and 101000 cubic yards of sand and gravel. The sand and gravel resource has largely been mined out by previous mining operations. Therefore, this analysis will focus on the pumice resource. 2. Site characteristics. The site is just off Johnson Road approximately .75 miles southwest of Tumalo State Park and 1.5 miles south of Highway 20. Johnson Road runs just west of the site, touching it in the NW corner. Access is via a dirt/gravel road, off Johnson Road. The west half of the site is primarily natural with juniper tree and some sagebrush. There are two small pumice quar- ries on the west half. Part of the east half has been cleared and mined. No improvements are located on the property. This a relatively sparsely developed area of larger residen- tial acreages. Directly west of the subject site is a gravel reserve site. To the south are 40 -acre residential properties. 500 feet to the east lies the Deschutes River and the Deschutes Scenic Waterway, with a residential property in between the mine and the river. Within a half mile to the north lies the Tumalo Rim subdivision, with average quality homes on half -acre lots. Also within a half mile to the north are farm properties, an older gravel pit, and Tumalo State Park. Across the Deschutes River to the east is undeveloped land. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range, with medium frequency of use. The surrounding properties all have 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 10-1 - 1361 a Wildlife Area combining zone, indicating that this area is part of the Tumalo winter deer range. There is also medium sensitive raptor use in the area. Neigh- borhood residents testified to seeing eagles in the area. 2. State Scenic Waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River has been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Such designation includes a 1/4 mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that a portion of the site falls within the scenic waterway corridor. State scenic waterway designation is based upon a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, historic, archeological, recreational and outdoor values. From the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River study, the outstanding attributes of the river in this segment appear to be its scenic and recreational qualities. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County, that study noted that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 3. Open space. The surrounding zoning of EFU-20 indicates high open space values. In addition, as the testimony of State Parks indicates, the site is located between two parcels of land that are a part of the Tumalo State Park, which also indicates high open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 101 -"1:62 generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has characterized the impact of noise on deer at this site as medium. (3) Impacts on the Deschutes River State Scenic Waterway would include visual impacts from surface and vegeta- tion disturbance within the scenic waterway corridor as set forth in paragraph (1) above. In addition, testi- mony of area residents indicated that the usual winds blow dust from the site toward the river and the state park. Because the pit is on a bluff, noise from the site carries over to the river and to Tumalo State Park. Such impacts would adversely affect the special scenic and recreational qualities of the Deschutes River and Tumalo State Park. There is no indication that surface mining would create water quality pro- blems, since the site is set back from the river. State scenic waterway status does not preclude mining in scenic waterways, but allows for mining operations in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks Department regulation. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would have an adverse impact on wildlife, open space and scenic resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the SM, EFU-20, UAR-10, and MUA 10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and at Section 4.100 (SM) of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15, and Section 10 of the Bend Area General Plan, PL -11. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 1(J-1 - 1 363 At the site (1) The Board finds that the site is already committed to surface mining and that the existing surface mining conflicts with other allowed and conditional uses in the SM zone in that occupation of the surface area of the site for mining prevents other uses from being established. (2) The impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensi- tive uses (as defined below) that could be established on unoccupied portions of the site. As a practical matter, such conflicts are not of great consequence, since the owner of the site has chosen to commit the site to surface mining. Surrounding zones (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, other mining or geothermal uses, personal landing strip uses, forest products processing uses, and hydroelectric uses. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and community and park -type uses. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing are conflicting in that full protection of those use would preclude continued mining at the site or cause limita- tions to be put on mining activities. The Board finds that there are existing uses in the area that would be impacted by the above-described conflicts. Specifically, the residential uses in the nearby 40 -lot 5 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 303 e :; O :i0`t 1364 Tumalo Rim Drive subdivision to the North and the adjacent residence to the East would be subject to noise near the subdivision and possible dust impacts. Increased truck traffic on Johnson Road could adversely affect the safety of Tumalo Rim Drive subdivision residents. In addition, there was testimony that Johnson Road is heavily used by bicy- clists. The Board finds that the surface mine is not visible from the Tumalo Rim subdivision and would be diffi- cult to see from the residence immediately to the East. The site would be most visible from the undeveloped land to the East. The Board finds that visitors to Tumalo State Park would also be affected based upon the testimony of State Parks and neighborhood residents. Tumalo State Park receives high campground and day use and that the site is located between two portions of the Park. State Parks testified that day hikers use the undeveloped portions of the park adjacent to site 303. In addition, the site is visible from the devel- oped portions of the Park and from the River. Neighborhood residents testified that the usual winds blow dust toward the park and that sound carries from the site toward the river and the park. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, open space, and scenic waterway values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un - 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 io't 1365 sightly areas in the county. This could be an importance consequence, given the proximity of the site to Tumalo State Park and since the Deschutes River has been found to be the most important recreational feature in the County. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and exacerbate an existing scar in the landscape. The impact would be felt primarily by those making use of Tumalo State Park and the Deschutes River. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic qualities of the Deschutes River corridor. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views from the Deschutes River corridor would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topo- graphy. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances, since in any event the current operator would have to reclaim those portions of the site that are not grandfathered. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Although pumice is not as necessary a mineral as sand and gravel is, it is still a basic material and chances are that energy would be expended in obtaining a substitute material. There would be no negative effect in protecting the pumice resource. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 of 136G Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of Goal 5 resources could preclude or curtail mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the Des- chutes River corridor could only be fully protected by precluding or placing limits on mining. The Board finds that pumice resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufac- turing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Pumice is not thought to be in short supply in the County. This coupled with the fact that pumice is not as essential a mineral as is aggregate would make for much less of an economic effect if conflicting resources were to be pro- tected. Still, pumice does have value as a material for building blocks and as an export for the local economy. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that pumice is in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social conse- quences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the pumice resource would not have the same kind of social consequence that failure to protect aggregate sources could. In general, whatever the social consequences of not allowing increased pumice mining at the various pumice sites, the effect would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, dust traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of scenic resources and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with mineral resources, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy consequences from preserving the conflicting Goal 5 resources would be neutral for the reasons set forth in paragraph 8. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 1.0.1 - 136-1" 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the Goal 5 resources and the aggregate resource are impor- tant relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Pumice has value for the economy of Central Oregon as an economic commodity. Given the quality and quantity of pumice present at this site, this is a significant pumice site. (b) This site has been a mining site of long standing. (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (d) The Deschutes River is among the most important natural features in the County, as has been demonstrated by the Ragatz survey and by the designation at this site by state and federal designation for Scenic Waterway status. (e) Preserving the natural qualities of the Deschutes River is important to the burgeoning recreational economy of the County. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the Goal 5 resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the pumice resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 01 'M 1368 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Another potential cost to the community at large is the possible effects on the region's tourist indus- try. Tumalo State Park is a major recreation site in the County, and adverse impacts to the park could have an effect on visitor's attitudes toward the region. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, there is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project as set forth above. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would most likely have neutral or slightly positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some source in any event. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 11 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 r 046-, 16*1 '" 1369 mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts can place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in rural sites such as this can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater overall energy consumption. Increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting residential uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to occupa- tion and development of individual parcels of private property. Associated with such commitment are econo- mic, quality of life and health and safety expecta- tions. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 101 1310 (c) The use at Tumalo Park and sites along the Deschutes River are important as a major recreational site in the County. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening, with particular attention paid to screening from Tumalo State Park or the eastern, north- eastern and southeastern boundaries; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Wildlife restrictions set forth in ODFW's letter of August 10, 1989, shall apply; (e) Excavation shall be limited to five acres with ongoing incremental reclamation (subject to DOGAMI review and approval); (f) Mining operations, including placement of processing operations and equipment and excavation and transport of material shall meet all applicable DEQ noise and dust standards. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 101 -, 13?1 the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 303 rw� "r-) I r Itkkt ) EXft t bir A, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21,. 22. 1.01 13'13 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #303 COVER INFORMATION SHEET SAME AS ABOVE SAME AS ABOVE SAME AS ABOVE INVENTORY SHEET SAME AS ABOVE CASCADE PUMICE MINING SITES MAPS SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 7/25/88 LETTER CHARLES CLARK/CASCADE PUMICE 6/29/88 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 8/20/86 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 9/10/85 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 7/31/85 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 7/30/85 MEMO FROM FRANK SCHNITZER 4/27/84 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 2/27/84 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 10/4/83 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 8/1/83 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 10/22/82 SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 7/29/82 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 12/3/81 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 10/22/81 Fl 10 iOl - 13Y4 23. SURFACE MINING PERMIT DOGAMI 8/7/81 24. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 9/8/80 25. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 9/4/80 26. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT (AGGREGATE) 27. STAFF REPORT (PUMICE) 28. NOTIFICATION MAPS 29. MYLAR 30. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 31. LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 32. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 33. LETTER FROM DAVID NEROBOLD 8/21/89 34. DEQ SOURCE INSPECTION FORM DATED 8/4/89 b5. d 06 (,G rn m �55►dCie rs llea c (l� rYir n u_ Lc_s 3(0. -doa2j Ob c6rnmib6lonec5 'rta6nn 3-7' fey, to(n d"'�>P'W 9-10-$9 2 r sI . 3 15 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 304 Site Number 304, occupying a portion of tax lots 300 through 302 in Township 17 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 6, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 304 comprises approximately 15 acres and is located on O.B. Riley Road, just north of Tumalo Reservoir Road. The site is owned by Bend Aggregate and Paving and is zoned SM and SMR. Adjacent land is zoned SM, R & D, MUA-10, EFU-20, RSR -5 and RSR -M. The surrounding land is in a mixture of public and private ownership. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 13YG In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife, the Coalition for the Deschutes, a representative from Bend Aggregate and the Parks and Recreation Division of the Oregon Division of Transportation (State Parks). A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 225,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is located along O.B. Riley Road north of Tumalo Reservoir Road along the east boundary of the site. Highway 20 West is one-half mile north. The site is just south of Bend Aggregate & Paving's quarry and office site. There is a paved driveway along the northern border of the site. Tax lots 300 and 301 are natural with juniper trees, sagebr- ush and some pines. There are electric lines running along the northern property line. There is a home on tax lot 302 in the northwest corner of the site and a number of out- buildings around the home. An irrigation canal runs through the property. The surrounding area is primarily a gravel quarry to the north and natural, undeveloped land in other directions. The town of Tumalo is across the highway roughly .3 miles north. Tumalo Rim subdivision is roughly .5 miles south- west. The subdivision is primarily average quality home on .5 acre sites. Some of these homes have views over the existing quarry of the subject site. Within a half mile south of the site is Tumalo State Park, which is very busy during the summer months. Southeast of the site is a gravel quarry, which is site 305/306 on the County's mineral and aggregate inventory. To the west is natural and farm land at a higher elevation. To the east is the Deschutes River and Highway 20 West. Within a half mile of the site the primary uses are gravel quarry to the north, farm land to the west, quarry and residential subdivision to the south and highway and vacant land to the east. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Goal 5. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 01 I3Y7 1. Scenic Values. The southern half of the site has an LM overlay as part of the Highway 20 scenic corridor. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The staff report originally indicated that the site had important deer winter range values; however, during the ESEE process, it was discovered that the site had no such values, and the staff report was amended to reflect that fact. In addition, State Parks testified that the site lies within the Deschutes River Scenic Waterway. The Board finds that the state scenic waterway stops at the northern boundary of Tumalo State Park and the 1/4 mile corridor scenic waterway corridor falls short of this site. The Board finds that the scenic resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protec- tion of such resources, accounting for impacts of vegetation destruction and topographical alteration could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would adversely impact scenic resources. It should be noted, however, that due to the existing mining at the site and in the area, scenic resources have already been impacted. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140, 4.150 and 4.230 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 101 3.f3 At the site (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the SM and SMR zones to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclusion of other uses. (2) On those portions of the site not available for other development, the impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensitive uses, as defined below. These uses would include all uses within the zone except utility uses. In this case, there is a house located on a portion of the site. That house is owned by the operators of the site and as a practical matter would not be in conflict with the mining operation. Surrounding zones (EFU-20, R&D, RR -10, RSR -M, RSR -5, OS&C) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. This area presently has existing research facilities, residential development at the Tumalo Rim subdivision and park uses at Tumalo State Park that would be adversely affected. Tumalo State Park is heavily used in the summer months. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. Because of the site's proximity to the Bend Aggregate plant, truck traffic conflicts with residential neighborhoods would be minimized. The area does have substantial bicycled traffic, which could be adversely affected by truck traffic. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 The staff report indicates that the site is within view of some of the Tumalo Rim Drive homes. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. The Board finds that much of the property immediately adjacent to this site is zoned SM or SMR and is already committed to mining uses. Such surrounding mining development lowers the level of conflict at this site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the countv. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the scenic qualities of the area. The Board finds, however, that the area has a number of existing surface mines already and that continued mining at this site would have only a marginal impact on scenic qualities. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 i0l -,:1380 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have some degree of adverse environmental consequences on scenic qualities. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances, since in any event the operator would be required to restore the site to the extent the permit area is not grandfathered under reclamation laws. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to the Bend Aggregate processing plant and to the Bend- Tumalo market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this that are convenient to urban market areas and process- ing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the scenic resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the County is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend-Tumalo market area and that consequently preserva- tion of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower aggre- gate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The destruction of vegetation and topographical alteration associate with surface mining adversely affects scenic views. Therefore, protection of the natural 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 101 - 1332 resources by precluding mining would have positive environ- mental consequences. In this case, scenic views have already been altered by mining at and around the site. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the scenic resources are not sufficiently impor- tant to warrant protection, due to the level of existing mining at the site and area. The aggregate resource at the site is relatively more important due to the size and quality of the resource and its location close to market centers. Therefore, subject to any limitations placed on the site by conflicting uses, the Board will fully protect the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. There was no testimony on this site concerning property values. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. An additional cost to the community at 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 101 -, 1383 large is the impacts of mining close to recreational sites such as Tumalo State Park. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity would be felt primarily in the Tumalo Rim subdi- vision to the southwest and by the users of Tumalo State Park to the southeast. The high level of use of Tumalo State Park in the summertime would heighten the land use conflicts at this site. Traffic impacts in this case would be minimized by the fact that trucks removing the aggregate from the site would be travelling directly to the Bend Aggregate plant next door for processing of the sand and gravel. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 01 "a1384 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. In addition, there is the further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of aggregate that are located close in to market areas. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and in- creasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 10 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 304 iwi - 1385 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. (c) The site is located close to urban markets and the Bend Aggregate processing plant. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations. The nearby Tumalo Rim subdi- vision is a well established community of homes in the area. (e) Tumalo State Park is heavily -used during the summer months. Recreation sites, such as Tumalo State Park, are increasingly important for the Deschutes County economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 13 8 6 Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, tax lots 300-302 will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening. In particular, the eastern, nor- theastern, and southeastern boundaries of the site shall be screened to screen the project from Tumalo State Park; (c) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; (d) Road access to the site will be limited to the north boundary so as to not increase activity on the old Bend -Sisters Highway or Reservoir Road; The Board finds that processing on site will not be allowed in order to protect the neighboring Tumalo State Park use. Furthermore, the Board finds that tax lot 700 to the south of tax lots 300-302, also owned by Bend Aggregate, is not part of this site and should be rezoned from surface mining in order to offer a further buffer to the nearby state park use. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 .V the surface area of the mineral protected against establishment mining of the mineral or aggre protection advances the goal of mineral or aggregate resources or aggregate needs. i 0 1 - 133.? or aggregate resource is of uses that would prevent gate in the future. Such protection of sufficient to meet the County's mineral 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and the Tumalo State Park use are protected by the require- ment that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise standards, limits on maximum area of surface distur- bance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 304 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #304 0l m, 1388 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. LETTER OF QUANTITY FROM FRAISER 6/7/88 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. LETTER COALITION FRO THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 6. DOGAMI SURFACE MINE PERMIT 8/9/89 7. LETTER NORM BEHRENS ODFW 8/21/89 8. SURFACE MINING PERMIT 8/9/89 9. REPORT OF ON—SITE INSPECTION 7/12/89 10. REPORT OF ON—SITE INSPECTION 6/22/89 11. LETTER OLIVER W. FRASER 6/7/88 12. MAP 13. MYLAR 14. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 15. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 I Lo L4,ee- �tu m OaFw cil q-io-V _60&v l Comm �ss�on¢,�, de�e�s►o,n rr;�n -s 1$ • �oa� � C.omrri,'rS�onQtS hea.r�nc� �r;�nw�s Jcl . t�ri�c� Comm, is n �cammencEa-�crn 101 - 138J ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 305/306 Site Number 305/306, occupying a portion of tax lots 700, all of tax lot 100 and 302 in Township 17 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 6, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that prelimin- ary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site numbers 305 and 306 are located adjacent to one another at the intersection of Johnson Road and Tumalo Market Road and comprise approximately 90 acres. The site is owned by R.L. Coats and is zoned SM and MUA-10 (on a portion of tax lot 700). Adjacent land is zoned SM, MUA-10, EFU-20, RSR -5 and RSR -M. The staff report and notice erroneously refer to the site as covering only tax lot 100. The maps, appraiser's observations, photographs and testimony from the applicant and members of the public demonstrate that the site brought to hearing included tax lots 700 located adjacent to the north of tax lot 100. As tax lots 100 and 700 are immediately adjacent to one another and part of the same site complex, and since the remaining aggregate is located on tax lot 700, the Board finds that the notice is sufficient both in content and scope of distribution to ade- quately apprise affected parties of the decision to be made. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 041 -, 1000 HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from R.L. Coats, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Coalition for the Deschutes, the Parks and Recreation Division of the Oregon Division of Transportation (State Parks) and numerous neighbors from the adjacent Tumalo Rim Drive subdivision. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 150,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is located just southwest of the intersection with Tumalo Market Road. The north end lies adjacent to Tumalo Market Road. The east edge is bounded by Johnson Road. Directly to the west is Tumalo Rim subdivision. Access to Highway 20 is one and one-half miles to the north. The site is an old gravel quarry of which the southern portion (tax lot 100) is planted and slowly returning to a natural state under a reclamation plan. The northern portion of the site (tax lot 700) is currently used for storage and is the portion on which additional mining would occur. The mined portion is at a lower grade than the surrounding area to the west and the unmined portions. There are 40 or so homes in a subdivision directly adjacent to the site to the west. At least 9 homes are visible from the site, 6 in the subdivision on Tumalo Rim Drive to the west and 3 on the rim across the Deschutes River to the east. The site is highly visible from these homes and from Highway 20. Within one-half mile to the southeast is Tumalo State Park, which is very busy during the summer months. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 0_1 - 1391 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Conflicting Resources 1. State scenic waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River has been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Such designation includes a 1/4 mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that the site falls within the scenic waterway. State scenic waterway designation is based upon a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, archeological and recreational and other values. From the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River study, the outstanding attributes of the river in this segment appear to be its scenic and recreational qualities. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 2. Open space and scenic. Adjacent land across the Deschutes River is occupied by Tumalo State Park and is zoned open space and conservation (OS&C). Open space enhances this area for the scenic view from Tumalo State Park. 3. Wildlife habitat. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer winter range. The Department has also recognized this site as having medium sensitive raptor use by golden eagles. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 (J 11 ", 13U2 (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construc- tion of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. (3) Impacts on the Deschutes River state scenic waterway would include visual impacts from surface mining and vegetation disturbance within the scenic waterway corridor as set forth in paragraph (1) above. In addition, the corridor would be impacted by the noise and dust from mining operations and increased truck traffic in the area. There is no indication that surface mining at this site would create water quality problems. State scenic waterway status does not preclude mining in scenic waterways, but allows for mining operations in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks approval. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140, 4.150 and 4.230 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the SM and SMR zones to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclusion of other uses. (2) On those portions of the site available for other development, the impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensitive uses, as defined below and aesthetic impacts. These uses would include all uses within the zone except utility uses. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 0' 1333 Surrounding zones (EFU-20, RR -10, RSR -M, RSR -5, OS&C) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. The Board finds that existing residential development at the Tumalo Rim subdivision and park uses at Tumalo State Park that would be adversely affected. The Tumalo Rim subdivision has 40 homes in it, and many of its residents testified concerning the probable impacts of noise on their quality of life. Tumalo State Park is heavily used in the summer months and visitors could expect to be adversely affected by noise from opera- tions and truck traffic. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. Because of the site's proximity to the Tumalo Rim subdivision and to Tumalo State Park, truck traffic conflicts would be substantial. Neighbors testified about their use of area streets and roads for walking being threatened, particularly their ability to walk in safety to the nearby state park. In addition, the area is used extensively by bicyclists, which would likewise be adversely affected. Finally, the state park is bisect- ed by a road that could be used by truck traffic. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The site is within view of 6 of the Tumalo Rim Drive homes and within view of the state park. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. The Board finds that much of 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 [iI rM 1394 the property immediately adjacent to this site is zoned SM or SMR and is already committed to mining uses. Such surrounding mining development lowers the level of conflict at this site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to Tumalo State Park and the Deschutes Scenic Waterway. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife, scenic, and recrea- tional attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic and recrea- tional qualities of the Deschutes River corridor. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild - 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 ;�sa life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views from the Deschutes River corridor would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topography. In addition, the recreational attributes of the Deschutes corridor would be impacted by the noise, dust, and truck traffic associated with surface mining. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances, since in any event the operator would be required to restore the site, to the extent the permit area is not grandfathered under reclamation laws. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to the Bend-Tumalo market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this that are convenient to urban market areas and processing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year 7 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 305/306 planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend-Tumalo market area and that consequently preserva- tion of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower ag- gregate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 Z< 1 3 J _i building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic, wildlife, and recreational values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental conse- quences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources, and scenic and recreational resources are often limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development. Scenic and recreational resources such as the Deschutes waterway are limited in number and cannot be recreated by manmade sub- stitutes. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the natural resources are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the Deschutes County economy; (b) Considering the quantity, quality, and location of this site close to the Bend urban area market, this is an important aggregate deposit; (c) This site is an existing mining site; (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development; and (e) The adjacent Tumalo State Park and Deschutes River are important open space, scenic, and recreation resources, for both visitors and residents. Such resources have importance for the regional economy. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 i 0 1 ' 139b protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. Some neighboring residents expressed concern about their property values. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to recreational sites such as Tumalo State Park. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 I 01 m 1399 to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity would be felt primarily in the Tumalo Rim subdi- vision to the southwest and by the users of Tumalo State Park to the southeast, as set forth above. The high level of use of Tumalo State Park in the summertime would heighten the land use conflicts at this site. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 101 1400 In addition, there is the further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of aggregate that are located close in to market areas. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic and recreational values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Actcirectate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate materials are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 101 - 1401 (c) The site is located close to urban markets. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) This is an existing mining site. (e) Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. The nearby Tumalo Rim sub- division is a well established community of homes in the area. (f) Tumalo State Park is heavily used during the summer months. Recreation sites, such as Tumalo State Park, are increasingly important for the Deschutes County economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the exist- ing zoning on tax lots 100 (SM) and tax lot 700 (SM and MUA- 10) will be maintained, subject to the following ESEE condi- tions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening, with particular attention paid to screening to benefit Tumalo State Park; (c) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekdays; (d) Blasting shall be limited to 10 days in any one year, and shall occur only upon 48 hours notice to all residents within the Tumalo Rim area; 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 (e) Wildlife conditions set forth in the August 10, 1989, ODFW letter, incorporated herein by reference; (f) Extraction at the site shall be limited to five acres at a time; (g) Mining operations, siting of equipment, and trucking of product shall be conducted in such a manner that applicable DEQ standards are met; (h) Mining operations shall be limited to a one-year period, starting on and ending on , except that stockpiling on the northeast portion of the site may continue for up to 6 months after the one-year period; (i) Reclamation of the site must occur concurrently with mining during the one-year period; and (j) A development agreement must be signed between the County and the owner or his assignees that stipulates a specific time period for operating, reclaiming and closing the site. Details to be set during site plan review to include a one-year maximum time limit. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site sill be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact, the restrictions on winter processing, the hours of operation, the 5 -acre limit on excavation, and the reclamation plan conditions. The Board finds that the screening and buffering provisions of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014, meet the ESEE screening and buffering requirements. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting mineral and ag- gregate resources, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 r- i0 " 1403 uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. 15 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 1404 Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise stan- dards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. 16 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 305/306 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #305 01 - ;1 4 0 5 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION SHEET 4. SURFACE MINING PROPERTY SUBMITTED BY BEND AGGREGATE & PAVING 5. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SHEET FOR HAP TAYLOR, JR. GRAVEL PIT 6. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/19/86 7. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/5/85 8. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/16/84 9. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/2/84 10. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/21/83 11. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/29/82 12. MEMO DATED 8/5/81 13. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 7/9/81 14. APPLICATION COVER SHEET 15. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/16/81 1.6. PROVISIONAL SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/11/81 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/19/81 18. ANNUAL REPORT OF RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 5/7/81 19. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/11/77 20. ANNUAL REPORT & RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 3/25/76 01 1406 21. NOTIFICATION MAPS 22. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 23. LETTER FROM DOGAMI ON BOND THEY HOLD FOR RECLAMATION OF SUBJECT SITE 24. LETTER FROM NORM BEHRENS 8/21/89 25. LETTER FROM COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 26. LETTER FROM NORTHON 5/10/89 27. PETITION 2/12/80 28. LETTER TUMALO RIM PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. 2/11/80 29. MYLAR 30. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 31. PETITION FROM TUMALO RIM RESIDENTS 8/14/89 32. LETTER FROM DAN YOUNG 8/15/89 33. ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 34. LETTER FROM T.D. WALKER 8/16/89 35. LETTER FROM DAVID NEWBOLD 8/21/89 36. LETTER FROM DANIEL & TAMBRY BROSE 8/21/89 37. PETITION FROM TUMALO RIM RESIDENTS 8/23/89 38. LETTER FROM TUMALO RIM PROP. ASSOC. DAN YOUNG 5/30/89 K TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #306 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. TABLE OF FUTURE AGGREGATE RESERVES 01 1 1407 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 313 Site Number 313, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 17, Range 14 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose whether the subji aggregate sites, hensive plan and For the reasons should not be so of the hearing before the Board was to determine act site, listed on the County's inventory of should be classified under the County's compre- zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. liven below, the Board determines that this site classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 313 comprises approximately 120 acres, which is located off Dodds Road, roughly one-half mile south of Walker Road and approximately two miles southeast of Alfalfa. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned EFU-40. Surrounding property is zoned MUA-10, RR -10 and EFU-40. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 i 0 l - 1409 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site; from Larry Rice, County Public Works Department, the Central Oregon Audobon Society and numerous surrounding property owners. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of ODOT quality aggregate. The site contains pea gravel, which is generally used as road base and for shoulder rock. This gravel does not require crushing. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is gently rolling hills which has been used as a gravel borrow site in the past. To the north is a large marsh and pond, and evidence indicates this is a significant wildlife habitat. Access to the site is obtained off of Dodds Road which adjoins the site to the east and a COI irrigation canal abuts the site to the west. The significance of the wetland is outlined in the letter from the Audobon Society as well as numerous letters and petitions in the file. This evidence was uncontested. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. Uncontradicted testimony supplied by numer- ous persons indicates that this site contains one of the largest nesting areas of yellow -headed blackbirds in Central Oregon. The site also attracts osprey, blue heron, geese and other waterfowl. There is consid- erable testimony that this is a significant wildlife habitat area that could be affected if surface mining was to occur on the site. ODF&W has also identified the site as having medium - sensitive raptor use. Area residents testified that red-tailed hawks, sharp -shinned hawks, and bald eagles have been observed in the area. 2. Open space values. The site's zoning as EFU-40 indi- cates important open space values. Open space enhances the scenic views from this area toward the Cascades and habitat for deer and other wildlife. Testimony of area residents stressed the spectacular views from the area of the Cascades and the surrounding high desert. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and testimony from area residents, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Testimony from area residents raised the concern that fugitive dust emissions from the site and trucks hauling material away from the site could interfere with the views of the Cascades and the surrounding high desert. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The impact of all this would generally be to displace deer from such areas. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife and open space values in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-40 and the RR -10 zone at and surround- ing the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The County comprehensive plan shows that, although an allowed uses, forestry uses would not occur due to the soils at the site. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 10. , 1411 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting and processing) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. 2. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. Several residents spoke to the fact that they chose to purchase homesites in the this area due to the natural beauty of the area and specifically checked the zoning prior to purchasing to determine whether the area had surface mining activity nearby. 3. Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. This could impact all uses in the EFU-40 zone, except that agricultural uses could be made on the unexcavated portions of the property. 4. There was testimony that siting a surface mine adjacent to homesites could cause a loss in property values and loss of salability of residential properties in the area. The Board finds that in general there is no loss of sales or property values associated with surface mines, as is further discussed below. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, all possible uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses, only residential uses presently occur. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and open space do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 .10.1 - 1412 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and would impact open space values. The social consequences of such impacts would be the reduced wildlife viewing opportunities to area residents and the negative impacts on open space values from fugitive dust. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and open space. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. The presence of a wetland with significant value adjoining the site increases the potential negative environmental consequences of mining on this site. Wetlands in this area are rare. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that preservation of this site would likely have overall positive energy consequences due to the fact that this site is located closer to development activities on the east side of Bend than any other commercial site. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 io`t - 1413 displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 1414 building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of open space and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggre- gate resource, wildlife resources and open space resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site could involve increased haulage distances of aggregate materials to the development projects occurring on the east side of Bend. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would therefore more likely than not have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources values at the site are relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: a. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. b. Deer habitat in the County is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, Board finds that the conflicting deer habitat value should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2) the conflicting natural resource value of deer habitat should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The Board finds that while the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of sur - 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 1415 rounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by area residents, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, blasting, and fugitive dust produced by the proposed surface mine. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals could have overall Positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to development sites east of Bend would compare favorably with haul distances from other sources in the County. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 13 above. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 141 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development, could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments on the east side of Bend would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such develop- ment. 21. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commit- ment is accompanied by economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 1417 Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting deer habitat resource and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of aggregate, which com- bined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 313 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #315 .' 0 '1 ," 1418 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. WILLIAMETTE IND. INFORMATION SHEET 3. SAME AS ABOVE #2 4. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION/MAP SHEET 5. SAME AS #4 6. SAME AS #4 7. DESCHUTES COUNTY MAP 8. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 9. COPY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY MAP 10. AERIAL MAP 11. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 5/29/87 12. LETTER DATED 9/2/86 FROM DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL IND. 13. LETTER DATED 8/6/87 FROM DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL IND. 14. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/3/85 15. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/4/84 16. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 11/1/84 17. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/16/83 18. REPORT OF ON -$ITE INSPECTION 5/24/84 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/26/82 20. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 7/22/82 21. PIT INFORMATION SHEET 1 ()�,,1,G 22. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 9/24/81 FROM ODFW 8/21/89 23. PIT INFORMATION SHEET FROM ALTA BRADY 8/24/89 24. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/16/81 25. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/7/80 26. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 6/9/80 FROM STARR RUD 8/15/89 27. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/19/77 28. SURFACE MINING PERMIT APPLICATION FROM T. KRUSE 8/18/89 29. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 2/17/77 FROM A.W. STRUYRENBERG 8/19/89 30. NOTIFICATION MAPS FROM SPRANG 8/21/89 31. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT FROM G. KNECHTIL 8/21/89 32. MYLAR OF TOPO. FROM STARR RUD 8/22/89 33. P.C. RECOMMENDATION 34. ADDENDUM 35. LETTER FROM ODFW 8/21/89 36. LETTER FROM ALTA BRADY 8/24/89 37. LETTER FROM FRANK HUSKIN 8/25/89 38. LETTER FROM STEPHEN SWERTING 8/13/89 39. LETTER FROM STARR RUD 8/15/89 40. LETTER FROM A.W. STRUYRENBERG 8/17/89 41. LETTER FROM T. KRUSE 8/18/89 42. LETTER FROM A.W. STRUYRENBERG 8/19/89 43. LETTER FROM SPRANG 8/21/89 44. LETTER FROM G. KNECHTIL 8/21/89 45. LETTER FROM STARR RUD 8/22/89 47. DOGAMI PERMIT ISSUED 5/4/89 1416 Vila-( �C_"n UDFo-t,` C4-10-'69 y�� ��nn�lY} (�r�rn�'r�;an 2��c�rnmYt��trcn `J`� '?.�sz? o� CCrY►r�1���-:;��n���'� 12���r-�� m,na.t�-� w. CGrnm� EX (e)IT A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2y . 25. 2(o. i 0l 1420 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #313 INVENTORY SHEET NOTIFICATION MAPS PUBLIC WORKS RESOURCE INVENTORY LIST STAFF REPORT & APPRAISERS COMMENTS LETTER FROM CENTRAL OREGON AUDUBON 8/5/89 LETTER FROM ALVIN FINK, JR. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION PHOTOGRAPHS PETITION AGAINST REZONING #1 PETITION AGAINST REZONING #2 PETITION AGAINST REZONING #3 LETTER FROM JOANNA BOOSER 8/3/89 LETTER FROM FRANK SPIECKER 8/7/89 LETTER FROM NAOMI ALBERDING 8/7/89 LETTER FROM FRED ALBERDING 8/7/89 LETTER FROM CENTRAL OREGON AUDUBON 8/5/89 LETTER FROM TED GUDITH 8/2/89 LETTER FROM JAY BOWERMAN 8/2/89 LETTER FROM BOB & LYNN SCOBER 8/2/89 LETTER FROM LEO MAY 8/1/89 LETTER FROM MANDY MILLER 8/1/89 LETTER FROM MRS. PRESTON 7/31/89 MYLAR 'doacd Comm�ysionecs heac�rx� Mlnl��15 e*dsd C0rnmi66:i& e-rS dec is�on m,tnu.?L5 lc#Ar rzsm OD Fv W orto -Sal i�li - 1421 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 314 Site Number 314, occupying tax lot 1100 in Township 17 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 32, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 314 comprises approximately 270 acres and is located on the east side of Byram Road, approximately one-eighth mile north of Highway 20 East. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned EFU-20 and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU- 20, MUA-10 and LM. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 314 101 1422 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 150,000 cubic yards of fill material. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is has natural topography of gently rolling hills, and there are numerous dirt roads on the site. The site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees and sage and there has been no prior mining on the site. There are several subdivisions in the surrounding area and a considerable number of letters were submitted in opposition. Additionally, several persons testified in opposition to zoning the subject site. 3. Conclusionary Findings. The subject site was originally put on the County's inventory as a fill dirt site. The Board finds that there is not evidence that this particular fill material is a valuable Goal 5 resource. As opposed to select fill which has qualities which are unique, this site has not been identified as having a quality of fill material which is unique or has any particular value. The Board finds that fill material of this type is a common material which can easily be obtained throughout Deschutes County. A considerable opposition to the subject site indicates that removal of fill material from this area will create impacts on the local neighborhood. Based upon the above findings, the Board finds no reason to consider this resource for Goal 5 protection. Based upon the fact that there is no evidence to support protecting this type of material, the Board finds that this site should not be zoned for surface mining. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 314 -L.-X4+i6ir a TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #314 itJ 2423 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. NOTIFICATION MAPS 3. PUBLIC WORKS RESOURCE SHEET 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. MYLAR SHOWING LOCATION OF RESIDENCES 6. MYLARS (3) OF TOPO MAP 7. COPY OF ARTICLE IN "CITIZEN" NEWSPAPER 8. LETTER FROM GEORGE BROWN 8/12/89 9. LETTER & PETITION #1 10. LETTER & PETITION #2 11. LETTER FROM ETHEL RIPU 8/10/89 12. LETTER FROM GEORGE BROWN 8/12/89 13. LETTER FROM JUDITH & MICHAEL LUNNY 8/12/89 14. LETTER FROM LEE & JOYCE GARCIA 8/13/89 15. LETTER FROM SHAYNE & SIRGE MELLON 8/14/89 16. LETTER FROM MADELYN C. LUNNY 8/14/89 17. LETTER FROM R.J. LUNNY 8/14/89 18. LETTER FROM WALTER & JUDY HEWITT 8/14/89 19. LETTER FROM GEORGE ROSHAK 8/14/89 20. LETTER FROM CHINA METZER 8/15/89 21. LETTER FROM MARIN METZER 8/15/89 22. LETTER FROM MRS. NORA ARTHUR 8/16/89 14�a 23. LETTER FROM JANET & LARRY BARANY 8/15/89 24. LETTER FROM GLADYS I. BIGLOR 8/15/89 25. LETTER FROM GLADYS I. BIGLOR 8/15/89 26. LETTER FROM ANNA RAUD 8/15/89 27. LETTER FROM PEGGY DRISCOLL 8/15/89 28. LETTER FROM BETTY A. WARRINGTON 8/15/89 29. LETTER FROM JOAN M. STENZEL 8/15/89 30. LETTER FROM ROBERT & KARLENE MCGILL 8/16/89 31. LETTER FROM FRED M. NEWTON 8/16/89 32. LETTER FROM GERALD & SUSAN HUMPHREY 8/15/89 33. LETTER FROM GORDON HANSEN 8/16/89 34. LETTER FROM BRENDA MYERS 8/16/89 35. LETTER FROM MR. & MRS. HAROLD RICHARDSON 8/16/89 36. LETTER FROM JEANNE THOMPSON 8/16/89 37. LETTER FROM SHARON & WES DAWN 8/16/89 38. LETTER FROM MOLBY BARANY 8/17/89 39. LETTER FROM JAMES ARTHURS 8/18/89 40. LETTER FROM HARRY & LESLIE KETRENOS 8/10/89 L4 I. 06 Com m'i t6ioan"s %1eS c i cx rri u S �Z• �' ►ct� �� Comm�Sione(S Gi 6-51oo rrilmzi�.S q3, iatr con-) mr -cup q-to-gj 1eAt,,,r co -f\ Gee,rqe. -i3�Lone, . 9—,,-2n 2 .1 °Loi. - 1425 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 315 Site Number 315, occupying tax lot 200, in Township 14 South, Range 9 E.W.M., Section 5, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 316 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located about one mile off Highway 20 northwest of Black Butte Ranch. The site is owned by Willamette Industries and is under least to Crown Pacific and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 and RR -10. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser hired by the County describing the site and its sur- roundings was entered into the record at that time. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 L..)I - 142E Testimony was also received from a representative of the Black Butte Ranch Homeowner's Association and four neighboring property owners in the Black Butte Ranch Development. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 7 million cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 315 is an existing gravel mine located roughly one mile southwest of Highway 20 just southeast of Black Butte Ranch. The site is located within the Deschutes National Forest and has a number of existing gravel pits in an active logging area. The site is densely forested by a mixture of old growth ponderosa pine, as well as secondary growth and newly planted trees, except where there has been excavation. The forest in the area is predominately ponderosa pine forest. Many of the newly planted trees were planted by the Black Butte homeowners in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Forest Service to preserve the area as a sanctuary for wildlife, including deer, great horned owls, red tailed and Cooper's hawks. Directly to the east and south of the site is Deschutes National Forest Land. To the west of the site is privately held forest land. Diagonally to the south, within 1500 feet, is the northwest corner of the Black Butte Ranch resort development. Zoning maps show that numerous home - sites in the Black Butte development fall within the one- half mile impact area. This site has been operated previously as a borrow area for construction of Black Butte Ranch and since then by the ranch for its own use. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Wildlife habitat. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer use range with a high frequency of use. Testimony of Black Butte Ranch also established that deer and other wildlife use the area. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 l01 - 1427 2. Scenic and open space values. Although the staff report indicates that the site has scenic value, the site is not within an LM or any other zone indicating special scenic values. Neither is the site along any major arterial in the County's transportation plan. The site is near a meadow area zoned OS&C; however, there was no testimony that the mine would have any affect on the scenic qualities of that area. Conse- quently, the scenic qualities of the site do not constitute a natural resource that could be conflicting with the aggregate resource. 3. Historical. The old Santiam Wagon Road runs close by this site. This road is listed as a historical resour- ce on the County's comprehensive plan. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Impacts on deer and other wildlife would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. Due to intermittent use of this site, such impacts would not be severe. (2) It appears that the Old Santiam Wagon Road runs through the middle of the site. Conflicts with this historical site would come from excavation and consequent destruc- tion of a portion of the historic wagon road. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 I()I 1428 At the site There would be no conflicts at the site given that the site is zoned for surface mining. Surrounding zones (RR -10, F-2, OS&C) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. All uses in the surrounding zones would be conflicting, except utility uses, other mining uses, forest product processing uses, landfills, personal use landing strips and race tracks. Existing residential development to the southeast in the Black Butte development could be adversely affected by noise. Black Butte residents testified that the noise from previous operations at site 316 to the northwest were disruptive, even as far away as 1500 feet. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. During the leaving from this site, neighbors testified that previous operations at a site northwest of Black Butte Ranch created bothersome dust conditions. Similar conditions would most likely be expected in this case. One nearby resident testified that his wife suffered from an allergy to dust and that dust from the mine would be a health hazard to her. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods and community centers. Access to this site would be gained through the National Forest or through the Black Butte develop- ment. Presumably, the Black Butte Homeowner's Associa- tion could preclude any truck traffic to and from the any mining operation from using the development's roadways. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 a �w 10-I - 14Z9 There was evidence presented that this site would be visible from existing homes in the area. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to the Black Butte resort, which is a major resort area in the County. Nothing in the record suggests that the site can be seen from the Black Butte development. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined and that mining activity at the site is not continuous. With respect to the historical wagon road, excavation that would impact the road, there 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 i.01 - 14:30 would be negative social consequences in that a link to the past would be lost. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat. Surface mining activ- ities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views of the Deschutes River corridor would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topo- graphy. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. The area is natural in appearance, except for the excavated area and is vegetated with ponderosa pine and bitterbrush. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to Highway 20 and would likely only be used in nearby Highway 20 construction jobs. The Board finds generally that preservation of this site would have the effect of reducing overall energy consumption by reducing the distance that aggregate materials would have to be hauled to highway jobs. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 'i o t - 14:31 The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located close to Highway 20 and could be used for aggregate material on such jobs at a savings in cost over material that would have to be hauled from further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 if t 14:32 County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of wildlife values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources are often limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development and cannot be replaced. The environmental consequences in this case would be mitigated by the intermittent use of the site. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the natural resources are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the Deschutes County economy. (b) Considering the quantity, quality, and location of this site close to the Highway 20 area market and the cost of transporting aggregate, this is an important aggre- gate deposit. (c) This site is an existing mining site. (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development and cannot be replaced. (e) Historical resources such as the Santiam wagon road are unique and irreplaceable. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 i0l -, 1433 protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. There was no specific testimony on this site concerning property values. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to scenic sites such as the Deschutes River scenic waterway. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 io.i ^ 14:34 impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. These impacts were testified to by the neighbors of the existing sites. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. At 7 million cubic yards, this site is amongst the largest in the County. In addition, there is the further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of aggregate that are located close to their points of use. In this 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 1101 _- 1435 case, the resource is well located for use on Highway 20 construction projects. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate materials are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The large size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 10.E - 143G (c) The site is located close to Highway 20 where it would be used in highway construction projects. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) Existing residential use at the Black Butte Ranch development is a well established residential and resort community occupied by full or part time resi- dents. That development has been carefully planned to provide recreational and scenic amenities to its residents. Individuals purchasing property in that development have done so with economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. (e) Resort areas such as Black Butte resort are important to the Deschutes County economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. It is likely that all potential conflicting uses in the Black Butte development would be protected by the location of existing homes in that development. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the exist- ing SM zoning will be maintained, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development. (b) Noise impacts shall be mitigated by buffering and screening. (c) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekdays. No operations shall be allowed on weekends and holidays. (d) Processing shall be limited to 45 days in any one year, to be negotiated with Deschutes County in the site plan process in consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 01 - 1437 (e) The conditions set forth in the August 10, 1989, letter of ODFW shall be adhered to. (f) Extraction at the site shall be limited to five acres at a time with on-going incremental reclamation (subject to DOGAMI review and approval). (g) Mining operations, siting of equipment, and trucking of product shall be conducted in such a manner that applicable DEQ standards are met and minimizes noise and dust. (h) Operations at the site shall be limited to supplying material to major highway construction jobs on Highway 20 only. (i) A cultural resources survey relating to the Santiam wagon road will be conducted as part of the site plan review and impacts on the roads shall be minimal. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site sill be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact, the restrictions on winter processing, the hours of operation, the 5 -acre limit on excavation, and the reclamation plan conditions. The Board finds that the screening and buffering provisions of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014, meet the ESEE screening and buffering requirements. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting mineral and aggregate resources, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 i0l - 1438 such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise stan- dards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 i0l :1439 other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. The concerns of Black Butte residents have specifically been taken into account by limiting the number of days in any one year that processing can occur, by specifying limited hours of operation, and by specifying that processing equipment shall be established in areas that will minimize noise from processing. In any event mining operations are required to meet DEQ noise standards. Finally, use at the site has been limited to use a source of materials for highway construc- tion and maintenance jobs and shall not be used for general commercial purposes. 15 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 315 .L 0 -1 - 1440 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #315 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. WILLIAMETTE IND. INFORMATION SHEET 3. SAME AS ABOVE #2 4. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION/MAP SHEET 5. SAME AS #4 6. SAME AS #4 7. DESCHUTES COUNTY MAP 8. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 9. COPY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY MAP 10. AERIAL MAP 11. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 5/29/87 12. LETTER DATED 9/2/86 FROM DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL IND. 13. LETTER DATED 8/6/87 FROM DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL IND. 14. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/3/85 15. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/4/84 16. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 11/1/84 17. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/16/83 18. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 5/24/84 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/26/82 20. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 7/22/82 21. PIT INFORMATION SHEET 1 fi0l 1441 22. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 9/24/81 23. PIT INFORMATION SHEET 24. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/16/81 25. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/7/80 26. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 6/9/80 27. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/19/77 28. SURFACE MINING PERMIT APPLICATION 29. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 2/17/77 30. NOTIFICATION MAPS 31. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 32. MYLAR OF TOPO. 33. P.C. RECOMMENDATION 34. ADDENDUM 35. LETTER FROM ODFW 8/21/89 36. LETTER FROM ALTA BRADY 8/24/89 37. LETTER FROM FRANK HUSKIN 8/25/89 38. LETTER FROM STEPHEN SWERTING 8/13/89 39. LETTER FROM STARR RUD 8/15/89 40. LETTER FROM A.W. STRUYRENBERG 8/17/89 41. LETTER FROM T. KRUSE 8/18/89 42. LETTER FROM A.W. STRUYRENBERG 8/19/89 43. LETTER FROM SPRANG 8/21/89 44. LETTER FROM G. KNECHTIL 8/21/89 45. LETTER FROM STARR RUD 8/22/89 t: -46. LETTER FROM DON RING 8/7/89 47. DOyG/jAMIff�}PERMIT ISSUED 5/4/89 ( lu ��.•i _ r :rK �, .tYE, .• ,,.i: 2,� 0V` C: t