Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-029 Part 20l - 1442 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 316 Site Number 316, occupying tax lot 200, in Township 14 South, Range 9 E.W.M., Section 5, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 316 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located about one mile off Highway 20 northwest of Black Butte Ranch. The site is owned by Willamette Industries and is under least to Crown Pacific and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 and RR -10. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser hired by the County describing the site and its sur- roundings was entered into the record at that time. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 i.01 - 1443 Testimony was also received from a representative of the Black Butte Ranch Homeowner's Association and four neighboring property owners in the Black Butte Ranch Development. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 7 million cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 316 is an existing gravel mine located roughly one mile south of Highway 20 just northwest of Black Butte Ranch. The site is natural forest land, except where there has been excavation. The forest in the area is predominately ponderosa pine forest. The site is located within the Deschutes National Forest and has a number of existing gravel pits and in an active logging area. Directly to the east and south of the site is Deschutes National Forest Land. To the west of the site is privately held forest land. Diagonally to the south, within 1500 feet, is the northwest corner of the Black Butte Ranch resort development. Zoning maps show that numerous home - sites in the Black Butte development fall within the one- half mile impact area. This site has been operated previously as a borrow area for construction of neighboring logging access roads. In approximately 1985, the site was used in connection with a highway construction job. There was conflicting testimony as to whether the site was excavated during that time or whether a forest service pit to the south was the source of that material. All agreed that the site was at least used for processing of excavated material during that time. There has been no use of the site since that time. There was testimony that during the 1985 construction job involving the site, the noise, dust and traffic resulting from activities at the site adversely affected the quality of life for the residents in the area. There was no testi- mony about whether or not complaints had been made to DEQ to abate possible noise violations. The Forest Service pit to the south is limited to extraction of 10,000 cubic yards per year, unless an environmental assessment is performed. The owner of this site anticipates that it would be used only occasionally due to its location, but expects that any contractor doing a job in the area would be interested in the site. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 �1 1444 3. Conflicts analvsis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Wildlife habitat. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer use range with a high frequency of use. 2. Scenic. Although the staff report indicates that the site has scenic value, the site is not adjacent to the Highway 20 corridor LM zoning, the LM zoning along Highway 20 specifically leaves this property out. 3. Historical. Although the staff report mentions that the old Santiam Road runs close by this site, this appears to have been in error. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use of the area. Due to intermittent use of this site, such impacts would not be severe. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site There would be no conflicts at the site given that the site is zoned for surface mining. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 10.1 - 1445 Surrounding zones (RR -10, F-2) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. All uses in the surrounding zones would be conflicting, except utility uses, other mining uses, forest product processing uses, landfills, personal use landing strips and race tracks. Existing residential development to the southeast in the Black Butte development could be adversely affected by noise. Area residents testified that the noise from previous operations at the site were disruptive, to even as far away as 1500 feet. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. During the hearing on this site, neighbors testified that current operations create bothersome dust condi- tions. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods and community centers. Access to this site is off Highway 20 and not through the Black Butte development. There was no specific testimony that traffic adversely impacted the residents of the development. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. There was no evidence presented that this site is visible from existing homes in the area. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 101 -, 144G in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to the Black Butte resort, which is a major resort area in the County. Nothing in the record suggests that the site can be seen from the Black Butte development, however. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined and that mining activity at the site is not continuous. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat. Surface mining activ- ities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views of the Deschutes River corridor would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topo- graphy. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. The area is natural in appearance, except for the excavated area and is vegetated with ponderosa pine and bitterbrush. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to Highway 20 and would likely only be used in nearby Highway 20 construction jobs. The Board finds generally that preservation of this site would have the effect of reducing overall energy consumption by reducing the distance that aggregate materials would have to be hauled to highway jobs. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 ( 1448 amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located close to Highway 20 and could be used for aggregate material on such jobs at a savings in cost over material that would have to be hauled from further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of wildlife values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources are often limited by 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 [ "AG L0.1 - 1449 locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development and cannot be replaced. The environmental consequences in this case would be mitigated by the intermittent use of the site. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the aggregate resource and the conflicting Goal 5 resources are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the Deschutes County economy. (b) Considering the quantity, quality, and location of this site close to the Highway 20 corridor and the cost of transporting aggregate, this is an important aggregate deposit. At 7 million cubic yards, this is one of the largest deposits in the County. (c) This site is an existing mining site. (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development and cannot be replaced. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 ?[ 1450 of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. There was no specific testimony on this site concerning property values. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to resort sites such as this. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely effect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. These impacts were testified to by the neighbors of the existing sites. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 lQ",i - °1451 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. At 7 million cubic yards, this site is amongst the largest in the County. In addition, there is the further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of aggregate that are located close to their points of use. In this case, the resource is well located for use on Highway 20 construction projects. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 f '1452 habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate materials are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The large size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. (c) The site is located close to Highway 20 where it would be used in highway construction projects. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) Existing residential use at the Black Butte Ranch development is a well established residential and resort community occupied by full or part time resi- dents. That development has been carefully planned to provide recreational and scenic amenities to its residents. Individuals purchasing property in that development have done so with economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. (e) Resort areas such as Black Butte resort are important to the Deschutes County economy. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 -14x3 existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. It is likely that all potential conflicting uses in the Black Butte development would be protected by the location of existing homes in that development. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the exist- ing SM zoning will be maintained, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development. (b) Noise impacts shall be mitigated by buffering and screening. (c) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekdays. No operations shall be allowed on weekends and holidays. (d) Processing shall be limited to 45 days in any one year, to be negotiated with Deschutes County in the site plan process in consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). (e) The conditions set forth in the August 10, 1989, letter of ODFW shall be adhered to. (f) Extraction at the site shall be limited to five acres at a time with on-going incremental reclamation (subject to DOGAMI review and approval). (g) Mining operations, siting of equipment, and trucking of product shall be conducted in such a manner that applicable DEQ standards are met and minimizes noise and dust. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site sill be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 i.1-1 - 1 455 not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise stan- dards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. The concerns of Black Butte residents have specifically been taken into account by limiting the number of days that processing can occur, by specifying limited hours of opera- tion, and by specifying that processing equipment shall be established in areas that will minimize noise from process- ing. In any event mining operations are required to meet DEQ noise standards. 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 316 r% -:vi 1 J` TABLE OF CONTENTS �j'i ISUIRFACIEE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Williamette Ind. information sheet 3 - Diamond International Information/Map sheet 4 - Same as above #3 6 - Report of On -Site Inspection x -15-S5 S pR�,� �,ws Cowti�ezSfa. ,oaf: 9- myl d�-,(xqraph,(CA map ip -`darn n. c� Comm � Ss�o �n �2C.Om mex�cla#io �1 3 A rl eC6J-2-1-V14 &� ?-Zz -i0 145 i. 01 - 1-4 5 7 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 317 Site Number 317, occupying tax lot 1300 in Township 14 South, Range 9 E.W.M., Section 17, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 317 comprises approximately 10 acres and is located on Five -Mile Butte, approximately one mile southwest of Black Butte Ranch. The site is owned by Willamette Industries is zoned F-2. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 with Black Butte Ranch, zoned RR -10, located approximately on mile from the site. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the econo- mic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the con- flicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding area was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 Testimony was also received from several person residing in Black Butte Ranch. Testimony centered around the proximity to Black Butte Ranch and the relatively low value of cinders. There is also noted that this site has been inactive for at least 15 years. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 1,200,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is on the south side of Five -Mile Butte and accesses off of Forest Service Road 144. Surrounding land uses includes forest land and Black Butte Ranch one mile to the northeast. There is no information in the file which contradicts the opponent's testimony that the site has been inactive for 15 years. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Scenic values. The F-2 zone provides a certain level of protection of scenic values. Five -Mile Butte is a visible landform from the surrounding area. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust from would most likely be visible from surrounding roads, including Santiam Highway (Highway 20) and the McKenzie Highway (Highway 242). The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 10 -1 - 1459 human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-2 and RR -10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 and RR -10 zones would include: (1) At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SMR zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture or forestry may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated por- tions of the site. Uses in the RR -10 zone would also be conflicting in this regard, except for farms uses on unexcavated portions of the site. (2) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and off-road vehicle tracks. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly on residential uses. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The public testimony included testimony that the subject was in the area with quiet ambient noise levels which could create impacts further than the one-half mile impact area being considered by the County. Much of the testimony involved consideration of three sites (Sites 315, 316 and 317). The testimony also noted that the staff report 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 including a comment that the area was blocked by snow and had not been visited by the staff. These letter site primarily noise, dust and visual impacts. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts, the conflicting uses in the zone are as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and visually disturb the landscape. Such impacts would adversely affect the attri- butes that caused the residents of adjacent rural reside- ntial properties to locate there. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued or increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 JUI -, 1461 In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. There is some degree of need in the County for cinders and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that states that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads any longer. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 i0l - 1462 finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggre- gate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valu- able sand and gravel resource. 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the conflicting natural resources are more important than the cinder resource based on the following facts: (a) Failure to zone this site will not adversely affect the supply of cinders in the county; (b) There are other cinder sources in the County that the County is protecting that can supply cinders for road maintenance needs; (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (d) The scenic views from the surrounding area of the butte are significant enough to warrant consideration. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 1011 - 1463 Therefore, the Board finds that the conflicting natural resources should be protected and the cinder resource should not be. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16- 010(2) the conflicting resources should be protected fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area, depending upon the level of use. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity could be high in this case due to the proximity to Black Butte Ranch and the elevated nature of the butte. Public testimony from nearby property owners illuminated concerns about the noise impacts of surface mining and its impact on the scenery surrounding their properties. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby logging roads would be short. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The protection of conflicting land uses could have the effect of causing higher transportation costs to the extent that denial of mining approval would cause cinders to be hauled to their point of use from more remote sites. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, there is an added cost of .22 per ton mile from extraction sites to the point of use. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 i 01 -, 1465 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by develop- ment where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Mineral Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that relative to one another the conflicting uses are more important than the cinder resource. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses; Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will protect fully the conflicting uses at and surround- ing the site. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 11 W io-1 m 146G PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting mineral resources, as the Board finds that there has never been a concern about the adequacy of cinder availability in the County and that it has chosen to zone and protect 24 cinder sites representing 21,830,000 cubic yards of cinders. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 317 w TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #317 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. WILIAMETTE IND. INFORMATION SHEET 3. SAME AS ABOVE #2 4. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION/MAP SHEET 5. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 6. PIT INFORMATION SHEET 7. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION/MAP SHEET S. SAME AS #7 9. DESCHUTES COUNTY MAP 10. NOTIFICATION MAP 11. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 12. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 13. LETTER OF OPPOSITION FROM BLACK BUTTE RANCH 14. SAME AS ABOVE 15. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 16. STAFF REPORT 17. LETTER FROM DIANNE LATHEN 18. LETTER FROM KAREN SWANSON 19. LETTER FROM D. KEITH SWANSON 20. LETTER FROM NEIL LATHEN 21. LETTER FROM HARRY & SUE SPRANG ZZ, �toard 0Com( iJS;o% ¢ V-eCgrig ( %r)sicS z 3 ` mrd 0 Comrri�ssioner5 cleuslon m'ttjLA:hs 1467 1468 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 322 Site Number 322, occupying a portion of tax lot 1801 in Township 14, Range 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989 . On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 322 comprises approximately 320 acres and is located east of the Deschutes River just nortn of Lower Bridge west of Terrebonne. The site is owned by Fred and Judy Gunzner and is zoned EFU 80 and FP and is located within -a Federal Wild and Scenic River corridor and a State Scenic Waterway. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-80. The surrounding land is in a mixture of public and private ownership. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report commis - 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 L0,1 - 1469 sioned by the County by an appraiser describing the property and the surrounding area was entered into the record at the hearing. In addition, testimony was received from the Coalition for the Deschutes, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the owner. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 1.5 million cubic yards of mixed quality aggregate. In addition, the site has 500,000 cubic yards of diatomite. The diatomite is deposited underneath the gravel deposit. The conflicts and ESEE analysis is done largely on the basis of mining the aggregate, since that is the overlying deposi- t. Mining of the diatomite would add additional benefits to mining the site, while adding few negative consequences beyond those suffered due to the aggregate mining operation. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located on the east bank of the Deschutes River just downstream of Lower Bridge. Tax lot 1801 encompasses the banks of the Deschutes River, and a plateau area back from the river 80 feet above the river. The property consists of a working farm. Portions of the property are irrigated, with the remainder subject to graz- ing. A 5 -acre portion of the property on the plateau is currently subject to aggregate mining. The property is otherwise undeveloped. There is substantial open area with no residential develop- ment to the north and east. To the south and southeast, the primary development is mining activity. One subdivision has been approved to the southeast, but no residences have been constructed there. To the west across the river are addi- tional active mining operations. Mining has historically occurred in the Lower Bridge area. The aggregate resource appears to be located on the plateau, as that is where the existing mining occurs and that is where the owner wishes to mine. Conflicts at the site will be analyzed in that context. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Natural Resources. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 1. Wildlife. The Department identified this site for frequency of use. There raptor use. 1470 of Fish and Wildlife has deer winter range, with medium is also medium sensitive 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's location adjacent to Lower Bridge Road, an arterial on the County's transportation map requires protection of scenic values along that major road. Views from the road including views of the High Cascades and Smith Rocks to the West. 3. Riparian area and Fish resources. The County com- prehensive plan lists riparian areas on the Deschutes River as being an important riparian zone. In addition the plan indicates the presence of numerous fish species. ODF&W has identified this area as being good for wild rainbow trout and brown trout fisheries. 4. State Scenic Waterway/Federal Wild and Scenic River. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River has been designated as a "scenic" river segment in the federal Wild and Scenic River system. The segment has also been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Designation by State and Federal governments includes a 1/4 mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that a portion of the site falls within the scenic waterway and wild and scenic corridor. The Deschutes River was designated a federal wild and scenic river in this section due to the outstanding scenic, fishery, vegetative, and historical/cultural resources in the area. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County, noting that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 5. Cultural and Historic Sites. Although the staff report indicates the possible existence of an old historic wagon road at the site, nothing in the record substan- tiates this fact. In addition, the Deschutes Coun- ty/City of Bend Deschutes River Study (River Study), which inventoried historic and cultural site in the Deschutes Canyon, including this site, indicates that no historic or cultural resources were found at this site. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 10 -1 - 1471 Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site (especially in sites such as this near riparian areas). The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. (3) Fish resources would be impacted by increased turbidity and sedimentation to the extent surface water runoff from the site entered the river. (4) Impacts on the Deschutes Wild and Scenic River cor- ridor/State Scenic Waterway would include visual impacts from surface and vegetation disturbance within the to the extent such impacts were visible from inside the canyon) and possible water quality degradation. The state scenic waterway law allows for mining opera- tions in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks Department regulation. Mining is not precluded on private lands by federal designation. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and streambed, and loss of vegetation and riparian habitat associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 10.1 - 1472 Land uses on the EFU-80 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Because of the climate, forest uses are not likely to occur. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the EFU-80 zone would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. The owner in this case has indicated that the mining activity should not disrupt his farming operations on adjoining lands. (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and (4) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. However, due to the large lot sizes in the area, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area only livestock grazing presently occurs. It is not Possible to predict what the potential is of such uses occurring. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, riparian areas, fish resources, and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling on Lower Bridge Road who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on fish and wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mor- tality rate for the area's wildlife. Excavation in or near the River would destroy riparian areas and fish habitat and degrade water quality. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 101 - 1474 The Board finds that if mining were limited to the plateau impacts on riparian, fish, and scenic resources in the canyon would be avoided. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located within 5 miles of Highway 97 to the east and that the site would accordingly be well situated as a source for materials in any ongoing maintenance or construction of that highway. The Board finds that there are no other significant sources of aggre- gate in the Northern part of the County closer to the Highway 97 area as this. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites con- venient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 if M "14.15 result in increased construction costs in the area. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the Coun- ty's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveabil- ity and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 01., �; !.()I ^-14*1G costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the economy of Deschutes County. (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County; at 1.5 million cubic yards, this site is among the largest aggregate sites on the inventory. (c) This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway 97 construction jobs. (d) The site is currently being used for surface mining. (e) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (f) The Deschutes River and its corridor is an important natural features in the County, as has been demonstrat- ed at this site by its state and federal designation for Scenic Waterway status. (g) Preserving the Deschutes River is important to the burgeoning recreational economy of the County. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 Therefore, the Board finds and the conflicting natural Accordingly the Board finds protection of the aggregate that both the aggregate resource resources should be protected. that under OAR 660-16-010(3) resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations; in this case, the owner has indicated that that would not be a problem. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of preclud- ing or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 43:'r's eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resour- ces for upkeep and improvement of Highway 97 in the northern part of the County would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aqqreqate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to develop- ment of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 01 - 1480 Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses at and surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on -other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Mining operations and activity, including placement and operation of processing equipment and operation of heavy equipment to extract and transport mineral and aggregate shall be consistent with DEQ standards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The restrictions and conditions set forth by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in its letter of August 10, 1989 identifying this site as a deer winter range site, shall be applied to the site, including the provision that processing and blasting be limited between the period of December 1 through April 30 of each year. (e) A 100 -foot setback shall be maintained from the rimrock so as to hide the mining activity from view when viewed from the middle of the river. (f) Extraction shall be limited to 5 acres at a time, with ongoing incremental reclamation (subject to DOGAMI review and approval). The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE N0. 322 i 0l ^' 1 481 Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and the 100 -foot setback from the rimrock above the river. The Board further finds that the winter limitations on processing will offer protection for deer. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. A legal description of the area to be zoned is set forth as Exhibit "B." The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and other- wise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 i(J)I - 1482 (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities, and if a crusher is allowed at the site, such uses must demonst- rate that they will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 15 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 322 ExH�Bir A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #322 +r� ' 14 8 3 1. LETTER FROM DAVID M. JAQUA DATED 6/10/88 2. LETTER FROM DAVID M. JAQUA DATED 6/2/88 3. LETTER FROM FRED GUNZNER DATED 5/27/88 4. LETTER FROM DAVID M. JAQUA DATED 2/3/88 5. LETTER FROM DAVID M. JAQUA DATED 11/5/87 6. APPLICANT'S REPORT & PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 7. ESEE ANALYSIS 8. NOTIFICATION MAPS 9. STAFF REPORT 10. LETTER FROM FRED GUMYNER DATED 2/16/87 11. LETTER FROM DAVID JAQUA DATED 9/30/88 12. LETTER FROM GARY LYNCH DATED 10/18/88 13. RECLAMATION PERMIT DATED 10/20/88 14. ZONING MAP 15. LETTER FROM DAVID JAQUA DATED 12/8/88 16. LETTER FROM FRANK SCHNITZER 2/9/89 17. INVENTORY SHEET 18. MAP OF PARCEL 19. FILE ZC-88-1 20. REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION 8/8/89 21. MYLAR MAP 0 # (,a ^ 1484 22. LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 23. LETTER DAVID JAQUA 8/18/89 24. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 7-s. l ko-4-ev bm m ©Df:z,w a- !o -$9 a Lo• ��nr��rlci Gomm %6n;ion r'2cDma-x nda�i o-& 0'1''1 • �oact� c� Comm��S�ot�e-r5 h2�1�t� m�nu�cs ob rnx n.L.:-4 .L C • -D()6 Aran ( � ab '� n � d t) -.Z -v 2 _ ` "1 POVE E & ASSOCIATES—LANDSURVEYORS UVN � SURVEYORS 10-1 -1485 PARTNEFISHIP I.D. #93-0738184 P.O. BOX 131 •OFFICE 354 S.W. 7th . REDMOND, OREGON 97756 • (503) 548-6778 -- • Z=ip°:t3&L`+1'i��rs7 ----�1 C icr�1' R. POVL"1 Description `___.-_1852 FRED GUNZNER Sections 9, 10, 15 and 16 T.14S.,R.12E.W.M. MINING ZONE CHANGE OF THE BRICE PLACE lZ _/M9 Descriptiion of a parcel of land zoned for mining situate in a portion Sections;9, 10, 15 and 16 of T.14S.,R.12E.W.M., Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 15 of T.14S.,R.12E.W.M., the Initial Point; thence east along the north line of said Section 1.5 approximately 660 feet to 'the east line of the west half of the NWJ* of the NW4 (W�WjNWIW) of said Section and the true POINT OF BEGINNING; thence northeast approximately 1866 feet to the southeast corner of the west) half of the NE34 of the SW3g (W�NE4SWIX) of said Section 10; thence north along the east Line of said WhNEhSWh approximately 1320 feet to (the north lineof the NWS (NW'() of said section 10; thence west along said north line approximately 1900 feet to the brink of the east canyon rim of the Deschutes River;. thence southwest along said brink approximately 1800 feet to the west line of the east half of the SE)t (EhSEh) of said Section 9; thence south along said west line approximately 1400 feet to the southwes corner of said EhSE4; thence s utheast approximately 1700 feet to the -intersection or the north ri ht -of -way (R/W) of Lower Bridge way, a County Road and the line com on to said Sections 1.5 and 16; thence n�rtheast along said R/W being 30.00 feet from the centerline of said roa approximately 720 feet to said east line of the WhNW4NW1t of said ection 15; thence n rth along said east line approximately 800 feet.to the POINT OF BEGIN ING. Same containing approximately 115 land acres. 1 OF 1 DESCRIPTION 11, n .--_�+--!''',- TTi� --��'-'- ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 324 Site Number 324, occupying a portion of tax lot 702 in Township 14 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 19, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 324 comprises approximately 59.2 acres and is located at Lower Bridge Farm three miles west of the Deschutes River in the Terrebonne area. The site is owned by the Depart- ment of Veteran's Affairs and is currently zoned SMR. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-80 and WA. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, an appraiser made a report of condition of the site and the surrounding area, that was entered into the record along with the staff report. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 I 01 1487 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 490,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located at Lower Bridge Farm. The site is south of Lower Bridge Road roughly three miles west of the Deschutes River in the Terrebonne area. The site area is located along the flanks of Deep Canyon. A majority of the site is currently irrigated farm land. The non -crop areas along the canyon are naturally vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. The site is located along the edge and in Deep Canyon. At this point, the canyon is fairly shallow. The areas of the site which are not farmed are naturally vegetated. There are some barns and residences on the site, but none are in the local area of the identified gravel reserve. Deep Canyon is a dry creek bed. A 1979 air photo indicates that there is an irrigation reservoir in the canyon, just east of the site. The site is located in an area of large farms. There are a few residences within one-half mile of the site, but the area is primarily farm and natural grazing land. The aggregate reserve area is not highly visible from Lower Bridge Road. There is one farm residence to the east of the site, one north and one group of buildings to the west. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The site's zoning with a wildlife area combining zone indicates that the area is important habitat for big game such as deer. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. 2. Although the staff report stated that open space and scenic values were present, there is no LM zoning or OS&C zoning to support such values. The Board finds that wildlife habitat resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff analysis, 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-80 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that some residential and farm uses included in the list of conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 80 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. The impacts would be small, given that few people live in the area and the site is not visible from any major road. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and open space and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 i 0 1 -- 1489 cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 to -L - 1490 amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the County is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are .22 cents per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transportation costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Redmond market area and that consequently, preservation of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower aggregate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude or limit mining at the site. The 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 I Q I - 1491 noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. There- fore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources in close proximity to market areas. Deer habitat is contin- ually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 1492 appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. This site is within 15 miles of the Redmond market area, which reduces the expenditure of hauling to local markets. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 6 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 Cad -a 1493 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development, utility uses, feed lot uses, personal landing strips, forest product processing uses and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards or sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites within urban market areas would create greater energy consumption because necessary mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such develop- ment. 21. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County, its size and quality and its location within the Redmond market area. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they repre- sent commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. With that commitment comes economic, quality of life and health and safety expecta- tions. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The Board finds that there is sufficient available land in the County to accommodate displaced uses, if any. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Conditions set forth by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in their letter of August 10, 1989, shall be applied to this site; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 of 1495 (e) The area subject to extraction shall be limited to five acres at a time, with on-going incremental reclamation; and (f) Mining operations, including placement of processing equipment and use of trucks to extract and transport materials, shall be carried out in compliance with applicable DEQ noise and dust standards. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise. The Board further finds that the winter processing limita- tions will offer protection for deer. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter processing limitations will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 149 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities, and within one-quarter mile to storage or processing facilities only if the applicant for such a use can demonstrate that the establishment of such use will not cause a future surface mine at the site to violate applicable noise and dust standards. (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 324 93 EXKlBiT- ,n TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #324 1497 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. AERIAL MAP 3. MAP 4. MAP 5. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP 6. SITE MAP OF GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE 7. VICINITY MAP 8. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 9. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 10. FINDINGS & DECISION 11. DESCHUTES COUNTY STAFF REPORT DATED 4/27/82 12. DESCHUTES COUNTY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 13. LETTER FROM MICHAEL D. RACINE DATED 3/7/82 14. LETTER FROM MICHAEL D. RACINE DATED 3/7/82 15. LETTER FROM WAYNE R. SCHOBER DATED 1/26/82 16. LETTER FROM WAYNE R. SCHOBER DATED 1/26/82 17. LETTER FROM DENNIS MCPHEETERS DATED 1/13/82 18. DESCHUTES COUNTY STAFF REPORT DATED 12/22/81 19. LETTER TO AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT SERVICES DATED 12/10/81 20. LETTER FROM GEORGE HAMLIN DATED 12/2/81 21. COPY OF ABOVE LETTER IN #20 1 101 �" 1498 22. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 23. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 24. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 25. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 26. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 27. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 28. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSMITTAL SHEET 29. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 30. DESCHUTES COUNTY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 31. DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 32. DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 33. FILE SHEET 34. LETTER FROM ELLIOT SEGALL DATED 10/1/81 35. STATEMENT SHEET FROM ENGIN ASSOCIATES 36. COPY OF TABLE #1 37. EXHIBIT C TABLE 38. MAILING LIST FOR SUBDIVISION TRANSMITTALS - SITE PLAN TRANSMITTALS 39. LOOK UPS WITH ATTACHED ADDRESSES 40. EXHIBIT A FROM CENTURY WEST ENGINEERING CORPORATION 41. APPRAISERS COMMENTS, STAFF REPORT & PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 42. NOTIFICATION MAPS 43. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 44. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 4,01 - 1499 s SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Aerial Map 3 -Map 4 - Map 5 - Geological Survey Map 6 - Site Map of Geologic Reconnaissance 7 --Vicinity Map 8 - Legal Description 9 - Questionnaire sheet 10 - Findings & Decision 11 - Deschutes County Staff Report dated 4/27/82 12 - Deschutes County Notice of Public Hearing 13 - Letter from Michael D. Racine dated 3/7/82 14 - Letter from Michael D. Racine dated 3/7/82 15 - Letter from Wayne R. Schober dated 1/26/82 16 - Letter from Wayne R. Schober dated 1/26/82 17 - Letter from Dennis McPheeters dated 1/13/82 18 - Deschutes County Staff report dated 12/22/81 19 - Letter to Agricultural Investment Services dated 12/10/81 20 - Letter from George Hamlin dated 12/2/81 21 - Copy of above letter in =20 22 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 23 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 24 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 25 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 26 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 27 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 28 - Deschutes County Transmittal sheet 29 - Deschutes County Plan Amendment Application 30 - Deschutes County Notice of Public Hearing TABLE OF CONTENTS SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: PAGE 2) -1500 31 - Deschutes County Zone Change Application 32 - Deschutes County Zone Change Application 33 - File sheet 34 - Letter from Elliot Segall dated 10/1/81 35 - Statement sheet from Engin Associates 36 - Copy of Table #1 37 - Exhibit C table 38 - Mailing list for Subdivision Transmittals - Sit Plan Transmittals 39 - Look Ups with attached addresses 40 - Exhibit A from Century West Engineering Corporation L 1 4 42. t 415 .. 101 -^ 1501 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 326 Site Number 326, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies those preliminary decisions. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 326, occupying tax lot 300 in Township 14 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 36, comprises approximately 200 acres and is located on the southwest bank of the Deschutes River just downstream from the bridge at Tetherow Crossing. The site is owned by U.S. National Bank as trustee for the Phillip Dahl estate and is currently zoned SM and LM. Adjacent zoning is EFU- 40, RR -10 and MUA-10. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report from an appraiser hired by the County to describe the site and its surroundings was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 J, All 1502 During the ESEE hearings on these sites, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Parks Division of the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Coalition for the Deschutes, a number of neighbors opposed to mining at the site and a number of persons testifying by joint letter in favor of mining at the site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that this site has 1.5 million cubic yards of good quality sand and gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is bisected by Tetherow Road. Access to the site from the north is on Tetherow Road off of Hemholtz Road. From the south, access is off Tullar Road from the Redmond -Sisters Highway. Site 326 borders the Deschutes River just southwest of the Tetherow Bridge. The site is on two levels of which both are fairly level. The lower level is in the river floodplain just a few feet higher than the river itself. The upper level, which is roughly two-thirds of the site, is higher on a small pla- teau. There were three small existing gravel pits noted on the site. One is near the river, just west of Tetherow Road after crossing the river. The second pit area is currently used as a motorcycle track and is south of the road at the top of the rise. The lower level of the site has been cleared and is currently overgrown with grasses and sage- brush. The Deschutes River forms part of the northern border of the site. The river is within 250 feet of the lower level. The upper area of the site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. Directly east of the lower level is a newer home on top of a small rise which has mountain views over the subject site. To the northeast on the other side of the river is the historical Tetherow House which is within view of the site and on the northern access road. This site is on County land and provides public access to the river. To the south and west is vacant farm and range land. Within one-half mile of the site is more vacant land to the south and west. To the north is Tetherow Crossing subdivision and more of the Deschutes River. To the east of the site is more of the river and residential acreage properties. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 f � 9 Hyl 15 0 3 Resources 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, ODFW has identified this area as having significant habitat for wild rainbow and brown trout. The resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan lists the Deschutes River as having Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout. The County Comprehensive Plan calls for the County to support efforts by ODFW to manage appro- priate reaches of rivers and streams for wild trout habitat. During the ESEE hearings, neighborhood resi- dents spoke to excellent fishing for brown trout in the area. 2. Open space and scenic values. The County Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Zoning ordinance includes areas along the Deschutes River in the LM zone, which would protect scenic values 200 feet back from the river. This would apply primarily to the lower ripar- ian meadow on this site. 3. Riparian habitat. The resource element of the County Comprehensive Plan identifies the area along the banks of the Deschutes River as being a sensitive riparian area. Riparian habitat has value for wildlife that use it for a forage and water source. Wildlife such as deer from adjacent areas may come to the area during the nighttime hours for water. In addition, riparian areas are important habitat for fish. Site 326 includes riparian habitat along the banks of the river. The riparian area is relatively broad with extensive meadows and what from photos of the area appear to be wetlands. 4. Scenic waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River is in the State Scenic Waterway program. Such designation includes a one-quarter mile corridor on each side of the river upstream and downstream from the dam. The Board finds that this site falls entirely within the scenic waterway. State scenic waterway designation is based on a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, historic, archeological, recreational and outdoor values. It appears from information in the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River Study (River Study) that the outstanding attributes of the River in this segment would be recreational, scenic, 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 060"1 i0l '" 1504 and historic. Because of public access at the site, the river corridor has a great deal of recreational use in this area. Testimony during the ESEE hearing attested to the fact that the area is widely used for swimming, fishing and crawdad gathering. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz Study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportion of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. The scenic and recreational values of the river at this point are enhanced by the abundant wildlife visible to visitors of the site. The Board finds based upon the testimony of a neighbor to the site that there are red- tailed hawks, blue heron, turkey vultures, and ducks that make use of this site, as well as the golden eagle mentioned by ODFW. 5. Historic and cultural resources. The staff report refers to the fact that the Deschutes Canyon was a transportation corridor for Native Americans travelling through Central Oregon. The River Study identified this particular site as having cultural sites. In addition, the river study lists the entire Tetherow Crossing area as a historic site, noting that this spot was a natural ford on the Deschutes River used by Native American and early settlers. The Tetherow Bridge and Tetherow Homestead were also listed as elements of this historical crossing. Testimony during the ESEE hearing also established that the site is marked by a historical monument stating "Cascade to Ochoco's Pioneer Wagon Road 1886-1920." Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and the testimony at the ESEE hearings, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space, scenic, and recreational values would be adversely affected by the removal of additional vegeta- tion and further excavation of the surface, the presen- ce of machinery at the site, and the noise and fugitive dust associated with mining activities. There was testimony at the hearing that this area of the Deschutes Canyon is used by the public for swimming and other public uses. The Tetherow House property pro- vides public access to the river and a point of inter- est. Visitors to the site would be disturbed by the 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 o- 1505 noise and dust associated with surface mining. In addition, the truck traffic associated with surface mining at the sites would pose a danger to visitors. The access roads are very narrow dirt roads, only one car wide in many places. (2) The noise associated with surface mining would adverse- ly impact on the wildlife use of the area. Any use of the area by deer would be impacted by the noise, dust, and truck traffic, as set forth in the staff report. Besides impacting the wildlife directly, such impacts would have an indirect effect on the public's enjoyment of open space, scenic, and recreational values, due to the absence of wildlife viewing opportunities. (3) Depending on how close mining took place to the river, mining operations could adversely affect wetland, riparian habitat and fish resources through destruction of riparian vegetation, debris coming to rest in riparian zones and possible uncontrolled surface drainage, leading to increased sedimentation in the stream, further affecting fish spawning habitat and fish food sources. (4) It appears that cultural sites identified in the River Study could be impacted, if not destroyed, if surface mining were to take place on the riparian meadows adjacent to the river. Historic resources would probably not be impacted since they are not directly on the site. However, those coming to look at the his- toric sites would have their experiences marred by the noise, dust, and traffic associated with surface mining. The Board finds that fish and wildlife, riparian habitat and scenic values along the River conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat and riparian areas and scenic resour- ces, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust, increased human pre- sence, and water quality impacts as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact wildlife and their habitat. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-40, RR -10 and MUA-10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The County comprehensive plan shows that, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 10i 15OG although an allowed uses, forestry uses would not occur due to the soils at the site. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, and processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensi- tive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. The surrounding area is developed with homes overlooking the Deschutes River to the north and east. 2. The impact of dust on subdivision residents neighboring the surface mine. Dust would come from the mining operations itself and from truck traffic on the unpaved Tetherow Road. Testimony was received from one neigh- boring resident who suffers asthma expressing concern over dust. He testified that even without surface mining in the area, there are days when he must remain indoors due to dust and smoke. The Board finds that dust from surface mining operations would be a health hazard. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. This is a particular concern in this case, since the access roads to the site are narrow dirt roads. The roads are limited to a 10 -ton maximum and the Tetherow Bridge has a 15 -ton maximum. Neighbors testified and the Board believes that in many places, the roads are so narrow that oncoming traffic cannot be accommodated. If truck traffic were to leave the area to the north, it would pass right through the Tetherow House site, which serves as a public access area to the Deschutes River. 4. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. The Board finds that the site would be in view of several exist- ing homes in the area. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, most of the uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 i '04 )0-1 " 150 surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses, residential and park -type uses are the primary existing conflicting uses. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. Because of the adjacent Tetherow House site and public access to the Deschutes River, the site is likely to attract visitors. Recreation is taking increasing importance in the Deschutes County economy; therefore, the indirect economic effects of surface mining could increase over time. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on scenic, wildlife, open space and recreational values as set forth above. Because of the public uses in the canyon nearby, these impacts could be substantial. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on the fish and wildlife and sensitive riparian habitat at the site. Surface mining activities would increase noise and traffic and reduce the available cover and forage at the site. In addition, noise could cause other wildlife such as raptors to avoid the site. Wildlife would be forced to leave the area adding more competition in other habitat areas. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 f `!' 5 i0l M 1508 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Although the energy consequences could be negative here, since the site is fairly close to Highways 126 and 20, access to the site makes it a less attractive site, particu- larly if it were necessary to improve the access roads to accommodate truck traffic. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 126 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 L01 - 1509 would result in increased costs for maintenance and con- struction on Highway 126. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of riparian and fish and wildlife resources and public open space and scenic values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to the Highway 126 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances to nearby highway maintenance jobs. From this standpoint, the Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site could have negative energy consequences. This could have to be weighed against the possibility of the energy being expended to improve the access roads to the site to accom- modate trucks. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the consequences, the Board finds that the scenic, recreational, riparian and fish and wildlife resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. The facts supporting the Board's decision include the following: (a) Although this site is a large one at 1.5 million cubic yards, its preservation is not necessary, considering 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 i0l - 1510 decision made at other sites. By those decisions, the County has preserved a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. (b) The County has preserved at least 2 million cubic yards at sites 275, 322 and 461, all of which are within 10- 15 miles of this site by road and have better access to major roadways than does this site. (c) The area is one of the few areas along the Deschutes River easily accessible to the public and is heavily used by the public. The site is valued by the public for its scenic, recreational and historical resources. (d) The area at Tetherow Crossing has unique historic significance in the County due to its site as an early settler crossing and the Tetherow House. Such historic sites cannot be found anywhere else in the County. (e) The extensive meadows along the northern fringe of the site are an ecologically important resources. Fish and wildlife habitat is becoming more scarce all the time as development increases. (g) The combination of scenic, cultural, historic, recrea- tional and fish and wildlife values at this site is impressive and not found elsewhere in the County. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This could be substantial in this case due to the fact that the access roads are narrow dirt roads ill- suited to accommodating truck traffic. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by neighborhood residents, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, fugitive dust and scars to the landscape produced by the proposed surface mine. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall mixed energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. To the extent that -surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. On the other hand, access to the site is marginal due to poor roads. This could make the site less attractive to use and could also require the upgrading of the access roads which would consume energy. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 11 above. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 4 iol - 1512 can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development, could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments on the southeast side of Bend would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. The area has a number of existing homes. These homes have a high degree of natural amenities, such as scenic views, solitude, and wildlife viewing opportunities that makes it a unique rural residential location. Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting Goal 5 resources and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 44,122,000 cubic yards of aggregate material (including crushable rock), which combined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 326 � )i' 1 o TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #326 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 2. NOTE SHEETS I(jt , 1513 3. TETHEROW BRIDGE GRAVEL PIT INFORMATION SHEET 4. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 5. MAP 6. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 7. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION ISSUED 10/28/8 8. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION ISSUED 10/7/86 9. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION ISSUED 9/18/85 10. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION ISSUED 1/81/84 11. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION ISSUED 5/24/82 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/17/82 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION DATED 5/18/81 14. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/20/80 15. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/5/80 16. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 8/23/79 17. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/10/78 18. NOTICE FROM MID -OREGON CRUSHING CO. DATED 2/24/78 19. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FROM MID -OREGON CRUSHING CO. 20. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/13/77 21. LETTER TO MR. DENNIS KARNOPP DATED 12/14/73 22. LETTER TO MR. DENNIS KARNOPP DATED 11/29/73 r .Loll - 1514 23. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 11/27/73 24. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE 25. MAILGRAM FROM EARL L. LOYSTER 261 LETTER FROM DENNIS C. KARNOPP DATED 11/20/73 27. LETTER FROM RALPH S. MASON DATED 11/13/73 28. LETTER FROM P.H. GROTE DATED 11/20/73 29. LETTER FROM FRANK & VICTORIA BURTON DATED 3/21/78 30. LETTER FROM ANDREW J. HALL & HAZEL M. HALL DATED 3/20/73 31. CONTRACT OF SALE DATED 9/15/72 32. INVENTORY SHEET 33. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/21/88 34. GOAL 5 RULES 35. NOTIFICATION MAPS 36. APPRAISERS COMMENTS, STAFF REPORT, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 37. LETTER DESCH. CO. 6/20/88 38. PETITION 8/15/89 39. LETTER FRANK CAL 8/21/89 40. LETTER H. GRAHAM 8/21/89 41. LETTER J. HAUF 8/19/89 42. LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 43. LETTER NORM BEHRENS 8/21/89 44. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 45. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 46. LETTER FROM GREGORY PLOUFF 8/11/89 47. LETTER FROM TETHEROW CROSSING PROP. OWNERS 8/12/89 48. LETTER FROM RUSSELL GUISS 8/13/89 49. LETTER FROM JAMES PARKHURST 8/15/89 50. LETTER FROM HENRY DIAZ 8/15/8y 51. LETTER FROM BARBARA DALE (PETITION) 8/15/89 52. LETTER FROM CHASE 8/16/89 53. LETTER FROM JAN ERNST 8/17/89 PARK & REC. 54. LETTER FROM GRAYCE LARO 8/17/89 55. LETTER FROM RAY C. DRASBEK 8/18/89 5cn, q-1cl-sic, 51 , ��12nri�nG� C�mm�,s,�►v�-� rpca��,-nm.e.nc�tic;� 61�6' rci p� Co mesio, xx ss Vv�o r i rx m i n cr t, -S 5r1 I Cny),n :'s�onern. do-.." n rn,n+-a"7, 3 101 - 1516 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 330 Site Number 330, occupying tax lots 702 and 703 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 28B, came before the Board of Comkissioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 330 comprises approximately 8.5 acres and is located on the northeast flanks of Tetherow Butte, approximately one-quarter mile west of Highway 97. The site is owned by Larry Davis and is zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU- 20, LM and SMR. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 101 1517 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has approximately 50,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is an existing cinder pit which has been used intermittently in the past. There is a single-family residence and outbuildings on the subject parcel. The remiander of the site is the flank of the butte and has an natural sagebrush and juniper cover. Access is off of a private driveway from Galloway Avenue to 10th Street. The subject site is located in an area of residen- tial acreage homes and mobile homes. The area is roughly halfway between Redmond and Terrebonne. Tetherow Butte has numerous existing cinder pits on it. The subject site is highly visible from the east and north along Highway 97. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent RR -10 and EFU 40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. This site is in plain view of Highway 97. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 i,Q.t - 1518 at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 and EFU-40 zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and EFU-40 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 01 - 1519 The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling on Highway 97 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 Or 01.7 J 1520 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 v 4_8 The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 0141) i0-1 - 152'2 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 (J'I - 15 2 3 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 !,.? �,.� 10 .1 - 15 5 mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 101 - 152G The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 surface mining activities, and mile to storage and processing applicant can demonstrate that not cause a mining operation to standards; and closer than one-quarter sites only if the the proposed use will violate the siting b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 330 .� 158 EKtAlai`r A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #330 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. DATA SHEET REGARDING APPLICATION 4. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 5. MAP 6. MAP 7. MAP 8. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/8/88 9. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 8/26.87 10. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 8/30/87 11. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/14/84 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/15/83 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/18/83 14. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/24/82 15. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/16/81 16. AMENDMENT TO COUNTY ZONING MAP PL -15 DATED 8/14/80 17. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 6/10/80 18. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. EXHIBIT SCHEDULE WITH ATTACHED EXHIBITS 19. LETTER FROM GLEN SCHAFFER DATED 6/4/80 20. LETTER FROM E.D. ROLEY DATED 6/4/80 21. LETTER FROM GROVER & JOYCE BISSELL DATED 6/3/80 22. LOOK UP SHEET WITH ATTACHED NAMES & ADDRESSES 23. MAILING LIST FOR SITE PLAN TRANSMITTALS 24. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/27/81 25. REVISED TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR ZONE CHANGE DATED 4/28/80 26. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/17/80 27. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/13/80 28. NOTIFICATION MAPS 29. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 30. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 31. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 32. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/5/89 I * SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Cover information sheet TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 - Data sheet regarding application 4 - Questionnaire sheet 5 - Map 6 - Map 7 - Map 8 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/8/88 9 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 8/26/87 10 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 8/30/87 11 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/14/84 12 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 6/15/83 13 - Grant of Limted Exemption issued 3/18/83 14 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/24/82 15 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 6/16/81 16 - Amendment to County Zoning Map PL -15 dated 8/14/80 17 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 6/10/80 18 - Deschutes County Planning Dept. Exhibit Schedule with attached Exhibits 19 - Letter from Glen Schaffer dated 6/4/80 20 - Letter from E.D. Roley dated 6/4/80 21 - Letter from Grover & Joyce Bissell dated 6/3/80 22 - Look up sheet with attached Names & Addresses 23 - Mailing List for Site Plan Transmittals 24 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 2/27/81 25 - Revised Transmittal Letter for Zone Change dated 4/28/80 26 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/17/80 27 - 2g► - Report of On -Size inspection dated 3/13/80 r� 04i f(,j 1 3 L �� 9 Yl t Y ti' m rrtkZ,14��1 rt Tj t1 C_G YYl Y1 t �� C� 10-L - 1531 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 331 Site Number 331, occupying a tax lot 103 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 29, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 331 comprises approximately 15 acres and is located along the western flanks of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by E.A. Moore and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned SM and RR -10. The subject site is adjacent to two other surface mines, sites 332 and 333. In the past there has been confusion over the numbering of these sites. The subject site (331) has had the wrong tax lot number indicated in the staff report. Tax lot 103 is the correct tax lot number for this site. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 i0l __1 1532 mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located along the western flanks of Tetherow Butte and slopes down to the northwest. The site is served by a cinder haul road which provides access to Northwest Way approximately one-third mile from the site. To the south is Squire Ridge subdi- vision, which consists of numerous five -acre lots. The subject site is an existing cinder pit which has been used for at least 15 years. The site is in the middle of a large area of cinder mining and reserves. The majority of the site has been excavated, and that portion of the site which has not been excavated consists of sagebrush and juniper. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. Conflicts The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 - ),Q b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 0 t3 ° 1 5 :3 4 permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 Lot „ 1535 part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97 and Northwest Way, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway main- tenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 t'av 1'2' ju-i 153G secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is already in existence. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 �r I(ji , 153_ e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 101 - 1538 impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 8 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 331 10,1 „ 1539 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 fj,,t - 15 d 0 Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 eTy ' 101 ^ 1541 Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 f 1542 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 331 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #331 (J 1543 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 4. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 4/28/88 5. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 7/14/87 6. LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 7/10/87 7. LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 4/3/87 8. LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 3/2/87 9. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DSATED 12/18/86 10. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 9/13/83 11. LETTER TO THE DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL INDUSTRIES 9/7/83 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 1/10/85 13. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 6/7/84 14. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/7/84 15. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 7/7/83 16. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 11/8/82 17. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 1/4/80 18. RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 7/29/88 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 20. TAX APPRAISERS CARDS 21. NOTIFICATION MAPS 22. LETTER R. BROWN 5/2/83 23. LETTER G. LYNCH 8/1/89 24. LETTER D. JAQUA 8/18/87 25. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 26. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 27. KAREN GREEN'S NOTES FROM BOARD HEARING 28. LETTER FROM JOHN WILLIAMS DATED 8/21/89 29. LETTER FROM YOUNG 8/11/89 30. LETTER FROM SHEPARD 8/9/89 31. LETTER FROM ZELLA MORTON 8/14/89 32. LETTER FROM BUD TOREOM DATED 8/10/89 33. LETTER FROM L. NIELSON 8/7/89 34. DOGAMI GARY LYNCH DATED 9/7/89 35. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 8/29/89 .36. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMENDATION :�7. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/20/89 38 . �3vd 06r-Gl m"-\- L Ho J 1544 ()� «,I --f ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 332 Site Number 332, occupying tax lot 102 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 29, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 332 comprises approximately 15 acres and is located on the northwestern flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by R. L. Coats and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned SM, RR -10, MUA-10 and EFU-20. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 , A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has two million cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is an active cinder pit which has been used since the 19501s. The site is served by a cinder haul road which is located to the southwest of the site and connects with Northwest Way approximately one-half mile from the subject site. There are two other large cinder pits adjoining the subject site. There are residen- tial subdivision located within one-half mile of the subject property. However, it does not appear that any of the subdivision lots have a view of the surface mine. There have been several letters from concerned neighbors in the area which are contained in the file. Most of these letter are concerned with expansion of the subject cinder pit. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. Conflicts The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 La. 1547 b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the MUA-10 and RR -10 zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the MUA-10 and RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are approximately five homes within close proximity to the site. There is an undeveloped subdivision nearby, but is is not possible to predict to what extent it is likely to be developed. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 -t -a 1548 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 o )4 g u,i 1549 opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Northwest Way and Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway main- tenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no 5 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 332 ' () -t 15 5 0 longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 0647 C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97 and road in the local area. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 i wl " 155E in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 I(JI - 1553 land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative_ Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 +' 1554 Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 0651 101 - 1555 The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 r— Co 3• )k., 101 -, 1556 sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 332 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #332 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. MAP 4. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 5. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 2/22/88 6. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 1/13/87 7. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/6/85 8. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/6/85 9. MEMO FROM RICHARD ISHAM DATED 5/21/84 10. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 1/3/84 11. LETTER FROM RONALD L. BROWN DATED 5/2/83 12. REPORT ON ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 4/27/83 13. LETTER TO EMIL J. HOWELL DATED 3/14/83 14. LETTER FROM BARBARA BAGG DATED 3/1/83 15. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 2/11/83 16. PROVISIONAL SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/12/82 17. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/25/82 18. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/25/82 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/25/82 20. PROVISIONAL SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISCUED 3/12/82 21. APPLICATION FRONT SHEET FOR OPERATING PERMIT 22. LETTER TO DEPT. OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL INDUSTRIES DATED 3/1/82 23. APPLICATION FOR OPERATING PERMIT DATED 12/28/81 24. PROVISIONAL SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 2/12/82 f 25. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/3/82 26. LETTER TO ROBERT COATS DATED 8/20/81 27. AMENDMENT TO COUNTY ZONING MAP DATED 5/14/80 28. NOTE SHEET 29. NOTIFICATION MAPS 30. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 31. ASSESSORS INFORMATION 32. MYLAR 33. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 34. LETTER FROM LAWRENCE NIELSON 8/7/89 35. LETTER FROM BUD TOREOM DATED 8/10/89 36. LETTER FROM SPENCER SHEPARD DATED 8/9/89 37. LETTER FROM YOUNG DATED 8/11/89 38. LETTER FROM ZELLA MORTON 8/14/89 39. LETTER FROM DAVID JAQUA DATED 8/18/89 40. LETTER FROM JOHN WILLIAMS 8/21/89 4Z • �,c-�{ o� C1>rri m►57'�one� G'1.ec-t,S �L�n rri�nuts s y3 12� ��m�oC-,Am�� rn'in2� 101nC� �eC��t;c7nrmt� i" Sri Lot 1 1559 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 333 Site Number 333, occupying tax lot 104 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 29, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 333 comprises approximately 10 acres and is located on northwest flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by Emil Howell and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-40, MUA-10, RR -10 and SM. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 q y:® r lid 10 �. -, 1560 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 500,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located along the northwestern flanks of Tetherow Butte. There is an existing cinder haul road which serves several other cinder pits adjoining the subject site. The majority of the site has already been excavated and the site has existing DOGAMI surface mining permits. There are several houses within one-half mile and numerous vacant lots, including Squire Ridge subdivision to the south. This site has in past been confused with site 331. The staff report for site 331 and 333 had these sites confused as did the appraiser's report and photos which were previously in the file. There have been several letters received in opposition to the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The site is not within an LM zone, however, views of Tetherow Butte have been identified as an important resource. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 iol - 1661 The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 i{il 1562 that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are four to five homes within close proximity to the site. There is an undeveloped subdivision nearby, but it is not possible to predict to what extent it is likely to be developed. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 $ 10.1 -, 1563 consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Northwest Way and Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway main- tenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 ioll - 1b64 would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 101 - 1565 important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97 and local roads. d. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 ­Itl . V.)k)A, I 1566 One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 1— ., k oto., L 1567 traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 L.01 - 156 8 and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 o`,-T?t). i�-r, 1 Conflicting Resources 101 -, 1569 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 .. � Tp I4 applicant can demonstrate that not cause a mining operation to standards; and the proposed use will violate the siting b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 333 ;-. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #333 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. LETTER FROM CENTRAL OREGON TRACTOR EQUIPMENT DATE 7/22/86 3. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 4. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 4/5/88 5. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 4/20/87 6. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/6/86 7. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 8/14/85 8. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 4/27/84 9. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 8/13/84 10. TAX LOT CARD & CONTRACT OF SALE 11. NOTIFICATION MAPS 12. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 13. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 14. LETTER D. JAQUA DATED 8/18/89 15. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 16. LETTER FROM ZELLA MORTON DATED 8/14/89 17. LETTER FROM SPENCER SHEPARD DATED 8/9/89 18. LETTER FROM YOUNG 8/11/89 19. LETTER FROM JOHN WILLIAMS 8/21/89 20. LETTER FROM NEILSON DATED 8/7/89 21. LETTER FROM BUD TOREOM 8/10/89 ZZ . f �nYi c� CAmrr-i,�� ion C2Lomrne�'1C1,�0�'1 Z3� C© mrY:ner5 Al - 112 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 335 Site Number 335, occupying tax lot 890 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 335 comprises approximately 6 acres and is located on the westerly flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by Robert W. and Earlene Irvin and is zoned RR -10. Adja- cent land is zoned SM, SMR and RR -10. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board.on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of excellent quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located on the west flank of Tetherow Butte. The subject property is an exist- ing cinder pit which has been used for at least 20 years. This site is in an area of active cinder mining, and there are numerous developed pits within one-half mile. There are also several residential properties bordering the subject site. There has been some opposition to the subject site and a notation that the subject site has been used for dumping of materials in the past. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 Ot i� O L01 1574 The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 110"1 15 Y5 should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur � () 1 15.16 any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 t: �> 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 10,E - Ibis Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consecruences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. ` 7 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 335 1az '� t— ? The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 10L - 1580 environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 4 County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 06 78 IV .0 " :1582 conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 i(jt -, 1583 Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 335 TABLE OF CONTENTS n 1 SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Cover information sheet 3 - Map - 4 - Questionnaire sheet 5 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/3/86 6 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 2/25/87 7 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 1/11/85 8 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/5/85 9 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 2/15/84 10 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/19/83 11 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/2/82 12 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/18/81 13 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 11/20/80 14 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 11/10/80 15 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 11/15/79 16 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 12/2/77 17 - +, „ 12lI/66 �q - a� C2 N 1584 ,E ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 336 Site Number 336, occupying tax lots 400 and 500 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 336 comprises approximately 30 acres and is located adjoining Highway 97 on the eastern flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by the U.S. Bank Trust and is zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU-20, EFU-40, MUA-10 and LM. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 ( ".0 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 750,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located on the north side of Pershall Way and west of Highway 97 north of Redmond. This is an existing cinder pit which was allowed through a conditional use permit granted in 1977. The subject site is on the eastern edge of a large area of active cinder mining. Within one-half mile to the west are four large cinder pits. To the east side of the property is .Highway 97 and various commercial and residential properties further to the east. The subject site is very visible from Highway 97. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent EFU 20 and EFU 40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. This site is in plain view of Highway 97. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 0681 indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 i0l 1588 The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other .natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling on Highway 97 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 101 - 1589 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 10*1 - 1590 The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 )f,_;IS 8 L - 1591 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97. d. This site is already in existence. e. Highway 97 is a major highway landscape management corridor, and site 336 is readily visible from the highway. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 0688 i01L 1592 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 ?89 + 01 1593 operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 0690 0l -:1594 mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 10. , 1595 f. The applicant shall not be allowed to mine closer to Highway 97 than the existing easterly edge of the excavated area of the existing cinder pit. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 336 3 I . a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 3364 )`_% . CXf+I B [-r TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #336 i0l 1597 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 4. MAP 5. MAP 6. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEETS 7. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON CINDER PIT DATED 1/11/78 8. CINDER PIT INFORMATION SHEET FROM MID -OREGON CRUSHING CO 9. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/28/87 10. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/7/86 11. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/21/85 12. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/16/84 13. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 5/25/82 14. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/17/82 15. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/26/81 16. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 10/28/80 17. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/3/80 18. LETTER FROM PAT DEAN DATED 7/5/77 19. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 6/18/77 20. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 6/15/77 21. LETTER FROM NETTIE ADAMS DATED 6/10/77 22. LETTER TO MID -OREGON CRUSHING DATED 6/6/77 23. LETTER TO DESCHUTES COUNTY DATED 6/3/77 24. LETTER FROM WARNER & ALICE JOHNSON DATED 6/3/77 25. MEMO FROM THEODORE W. THORSON DATED 5/11/77 k 4. i t) IL - 1593 26. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAM FROM W.N. DAVIDSON 27. PETITION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE SHEETS 28. MID -OREGON CRUSHING CO. INFORMATION SHEET REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE 29. MID -OREGON CRUSHING CO. PICTURES & KEY TO PICTURES 30. LETTER FROM JOHN E. BORDEN DATED 5/25/77 31. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 5/11/77 32. LOOK -UP SHEET WITH NAMES & ADDRESSES 33. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 4/11/77 34. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/15/77 35. CHECK LIST FOR NOTIFICATION MAPS 36. MEMO TO BOB FROM LORIN MORGAN 37. NOTIFICATION MAPS 38. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION DATED 9/21/88 39. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 40. LETTER US BANK 6/20/86 41. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 42. MYLAR 43. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 8/18/85 44. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/25/89 TABLE OF CONTENTS ! Q SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Cover information sheet 3 - Cover information sheet 4 - Map 5 - Map 6 - Questionnaire sheets 7 - Legal description on Cinder pit dated 1/11/78 8 - Cinder Pit information sheet from Mid -Oregon Crushing Co. 9 - Grant of Total Exemption issued 10/28/87 10 - Grant of Total Exemption issued 10/7/86 11 - Grant of Total Exemption issued 1/21/85 12 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 1/16/84 13 - Grant of Total Exemption issued 5/25/82 14 - Report of On -Site inspection dated 5/17/82 15 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/26/81 16 - Report of On -Site Inspection dated 10/28/80 17 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 4/3/80 18 - Letter from Pat Dean dated 7/5/77 19 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 6/18/77 20 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 6/15/77 21 - Letter from Nettie Adams dated 6/10/77 22 - Letter to Mid Oregon Crushing dated 6/6/77 23 Letter to Deschutes County dated 6/3/77 24 - Letter from Warner & Alice Johnson dated 5/20/77 25 - Memo from Theodore W. Thorson dated 5/11/77 26 - Western Union Telegram from W.N. Davidson 27 - Petition to Deny Condistional Use sheets 28 - Mid -Oregon Crushing Co. information sheet regarding Conditional Use 29 - Mid -Oregon Crushing Co. pictures & kev to pictures TABLE OF CONTENTS • 101 1600 p SURFACE MINING EXHIBITS: (page 2) 30 - Letter from John E. Borden dated 5/25/77 31 - Notice of Public Hearing dated 5/11/77 32 - Look -up sheet with Names & Addresses 33 - Conditional Use Permit Application dated 4/11/77 34 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 2/15/77 35 - Check List for Notification Maps 36 - Memo note To Bob From Lorin Morgan 31- ti(�4i catfu. vv 01, qa— c ivyj JO -1 1 601 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 339 Site Number 339, occupying tax lot 1500 in Township 14 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 32 came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 339 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located south of Goodrich Loop in northern Deschutes County. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned EFU-40. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-40. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 339 t)6, s A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,000 cubic yards of low quality, rocky fill. The Board notes that Dick Johnson from the County Public Works Department testified that this was not a high priority site because the quality of the fill was poor. This contradicts the staff report when the site was put on the inventory. Fill has no particular value which warrants protection under Goal 5. Fill of this type is nothing more than normal soil. Based on these facts and the fact that there were seven letters and a petition with 40 signatures in opposition to mining this site, the Board finds that this is a poor site for borrow of a non -Goal 5 mineral and aggregate material. For this reason, the Board keeps the existing EFU-40 zoning on this property. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 339 CX(�31T- A 4. 5. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #339 INVENTORY SHEET PUBLIC WORKS RESOURCE LIST NOTIFICATION MAPS APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT MAP LETTER FROM JACK B. PETERSON - AUG 1, 1989 MYLAR OF TOPO MAP Board do h¢arirr, m,nkttS ama C6 Go cn rri rasnr wus Ci 6 Sion rn,%nu--tLS lefe r kl>rin ot�R w 01-10-81 1E03 t:� 1 6 u 4 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 342 Site Number 342, occupying tax lot 203 in Township 22 South, Range 9 E.W.M., Section 2, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 342 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located two miles east of Wickiup Reservoir. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is currently zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 and owned by Crown Pacific. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 1 6 0 5 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,000 cubic yards of fair quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located in a forested area surrounded by Crown Pacific forest lands. The site has in the past been used for cinders for logging roads. Previously, there have been DOGAMI permits issued for access road improvement. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 j6.1 -M 16OG on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 101 -^ 1607 Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 io ll - 1508 such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 a. 1609 protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highways 20 and 126. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. f. Highway 126 is the main highway between the cities of Sisters and Redmond and site 248 is readily visible from the highway. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 � 01 :1.61. U values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 10.1 1612 lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 .`', AO d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 V 101 -, 1614 boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 342 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #342 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. LOCATION OF QUANITY/QUALITY OF RESOURCES 3. DOGAMI SURFACE MINING PERMIT ISSUED 8/6/79 4. ON-SITE INSPECTION REPORT 5. DOGAMI SURFACE MINING PERMIT ISSUED 12/1/80 6. DOGAMI SURFACE MINING PERMIT ISSUED 9/8/81 7. DOGAMI SURFACE MINING PERMIT ISSUED 7/21/82 8. DOGAMI SURFACE MINING PERMIT ISSUED 7/21/83 9. DOGAMI ON SITE INSPECTION REPORT 5/24/84 10. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 8/13/84 11. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 11/1/84 12. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/9/85 13. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/4/86 14. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/10/87 15. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/7/88 16. LETTER FROM COUNTY PLANNING TO NEIL HARTFORD DATED 10/18/88 17. LETTER FROM TED YOUNG DATED 11/2/88 18. GENERAL INVENTORY OF CROWN PACIFIC LAND 19. NOTIFICATION MAP 20. STAFF REPORT 21. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 22. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 07/1 101 1616 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF THE ) DETERMINATION OF THE ) ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL,) FINDINGS AND DECISION ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC ) CONSEQUENCES OF THE ) USE OF INVENTORY SITE ) NO. 341 (VARCO RD.) ) FOR SURFACE MINING. } The Varco Road site, also desscri,bed as Tax ID No. 16.02 106, Deschutes County Assessor's Office came before the Board of Commissioners for herring on May 18, 1989. The Board continued the matter until June 7, 1989 to make a tentative decision. By adoption of theme findings and decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that tentative decision this date. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, which was placed in the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's comprehensive pian and zoning regulations as "SM" or "Surface dining." For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGiS The Varco Road site comprises 174 acres, of which 95 acres is proposed for surface mining and is located southwest of the end of Varco Road in the Deschutes National Forest. The site is is owned by the Estate of Newell Baker and the mineral rights are owned by the Young and Morgan Timber Co., an Oregon Corporation. The site is currently zoned SMR and MA and is designated for Agricrultural, Surface Mining Reserve, Forest and Surface Mining, 1 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) � . 1617 and Wildlife Area Combining Zone on the Deschutes County comprehensive Plan. Adjacent property is zoned MUA 10, EFU 20, F2 and SM. HEARING AND EXHIBITS A hearing on the proposal to classify the subject site For surface mining use was held before the Deschutes County Planning Commission on February 22, 1989. A dg nes hearing was held before the Board of Commissioners on May 18, 1989. The Board had before it the record and minutes of the Planning Commission and also reviewed the list of Exhibits set forth in Exhibit "A" to these findings and decision. There were no prehearing contacts on this matter by Board members, no conflicts declared by Board members, save Commissioner Maudlin who excused himself from the deliberation and determination of this matter because his wife had a listing as a realtor on nearby property which could be affected by his decision in this matter, and there were no other challenges to participation by Board members. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, and its implementing administrative rule, OAR 660-16-000 to 025. Because the subject site has already been included on the inventory of aggregate materials, no discussion of the quantity, quality and location of such materials is necessary. The Board adopts and believes the material in the surface mining inventory regarding this site. 2 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) 161b The staff report before the Planning commission and this Board, which the Board believes, determines that there are conflicts between surface mining use on the one hand, and other Goal 5 uses on the other hand. The Board's decision is thus limited to determining a program to achieve compliance of the county's Comprehensive Plan with Goal 5 under OAR 660-16-010. The Board does not reach the issue of conflicts between surface mining use of the subject site and uses not set forth in Goal 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Identification of Goal 5 ResQurggs and Conflicts -- The Board believes, based on the staff report and the testimony of * * received at the May 18, 1989 hearing, that the following Goal 5 resources, previously identified in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, are conflicting uses with surface mining: open apace, wildlife, and scenic values. Staff Report at 1. The Board further believes that human presence and noise, dust, and traffic are each specific conflicts between the aforementioned Goal 5 resources and surface mining, as set forth at pp. 2-5 of the staff report. 2. Dunt The Board believes the testimony of Jack Myer, a registered professional engineer with 40 years experience in his profession, and Gary Hampton, a meterologist, which stated that the dust generated from this site was a fine substance which can travel great distances in the prevailing westerly winds. JM Ex. 11. The Board also believes the testimony of Stosh Thompson 3 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LI'VESAY ROAD) ars"15 07/11/1990 14:1g PRESTON, THORGRIMSON 503 248 9085 P. I JAI - 1619 regarding the adverse effects of dust on wildlife. The Board finds that dust generated at this site, even if limited to periods in which human activity is permitted in the Tumalo Deer winter Range, an area which includes the subject site, occurs at times in which the area0s greatest asset, i.e. its scenic beauty, is to be enjoyed by tourists. Scenic beauty and open space are given great value in the County Comprehensive Plan and the Board concludes that allowing surface mining would conflict with those values to the extent that it would be impossible to conserve such beauty and open space. Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the Bend -sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that open space and scenics values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. A timber zone, which carries out the open space and scenic views portions of the County plan is determined by this Board to be a better means of carrying out Goal 5 and its administrative rule and the County Comprehensive Plan than designation of the site for surface mining. 3. Transportation -- In the site specific discussion of this site at p. 4 of the staff report, it is stated that only sporadic use would be made of this site. The Board finds that, in any event, use of the site could not be made during the closed season of the Tumalo Deer winter Range, which is currently between November and March each year. The Board also finds that, based 4 ^^ FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) W r/11/113W� 141 V0 IJNI;S I UN i I Hul' WK on the testimony of Jim Behrens, the local Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW") Biologist, that there may be a need for an extension of the closed season for one month on either side of the present closed season. The Board further finds that the remaining months of the year are the period in which the greatest number of tourists come to the Bend -Sisters area and that unacceptable levels of conflicts between trucks and other vehicles using the mining site and tourist vehicles would occur. The Board believes and accepts the testimony of Mr. Scott that the use of adjacent roads by trucks and other vehicles using this site would have a deleterious effect on the local transportation system. Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that open space and scenic values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. 4. Haman Presence and NQ -- The Board rejects the .site specific portions of the staff report (p. 5) which relate to wildlife. The Board believes the testimony of Mr. Scott, who testified as to the equipment typically used in a surface mining operation of the nature of proposed on the subject site, which would include trucks, loaders, grizzlies and crushers. The Board also believes the one witness who was qualified to testify as to noise impacts, Albert G. Duble Jr., an Oregon registered acoustical engineer. The Board further finds that the 5 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) 07/11 /15I9Z 14120 PRk51 DN o THDRUR I M'S , 1621 applicant's engineer, Mr. Herbert, was not so qualified and disbelieves his testimony. The Board finds that Mr. Duble conducted a study of this site and presented a report (Ex. _} to the Board on his findings and Conclusions. Mr. Duble found that aggregate mining on this site would raise the ambient noise level more than 10 db, in violation of OAR 340-35-035. Mr. Duble also stated that, in view of the prevailing winds, it was unlikely any berms would be able to reduce noise levels by more than 5 db. The Board believes and accepts Mr. Duble's study and his testimony. The Board also accepts and believes the testimony of Dr. Stosh Thompson, who holds a Masters in Biology and a Doctorate in Zoology, and is the author of the report on which ODFW determined to close the Tumalo Deer Winter Range for certain months. Dr. Thompson operates a wildlife sanctuary in the area and testified, and the Board believes, that the use of the subject site for surface mining would conflict with the wildlife use of that site and adjacent areas within the Winter Range. The Board .also believes the written and oral testimony to the same effect by Kathy Miller and Mike Steele. Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the Bend -Sisters area, the Board determines and concludes that wildlife values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. S. Egonomic Conseggencea -- The Board finds, on the basis of 6 FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) 10 IL - 16122 Ex. 7, the map of aggregate sites available on federal lands, and Ex. 8, the letter from Larry Chitwood of the United Statee Forest Service to the Board dated _ , 1989, that there are other available sources of aggregate in the Bend -Sisters area for the public sector. The Board further finds that the availability of these sites will relieve the pressure on privately owned sites for private aggregate use. The Board also believes the testimony of Mr. Scott, opponentts engineer who is well qualified to testify on mutters of engineering geology and said that the resource on this site was in the same alluvial fan as the Livesay site, shallow (but more than S feet deep) and not unique. Mr. Scott submitted Exs. 5-8 to demonstrate that there were other available sites in the area on federal property and that those sites were available for County use. The Board accepts and believes such testimony. The Hoard also finds that the effect on roads at and around the subject site is considerable, as get forth in the fourth paragraph at p. 12 of the staff report, which the Board accepts and believes.l The Board finds that the elimination of this site from use 1. "There is a potential cost involved to the County if mining is to occur at this site. Mining activities cause a major increase of traffic both to and from the mining sites. This increase in traffic may increase the Trate of deterioration of the roads which bear the burden of this traffic. cost of rehabilitating or resurfaceing [sic] these roads could be quite high.0 7 -- PXXDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) k �7 19 07/11/1990 14:21 PRESTON, THORGRIMSON 503 248 9085 10 P.09 `a 1623 for aggregate mining, or the elimination of any one site in the county, except for site 308, "would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County-" (Staff Report at p. 16.) The County has not eliminated any significant amount of the 24 million cubic yards of aggregate which are on sites which have thus far been determined to have uses conflicting with aggregate resource use. Combined with the relative availability of aggregate on federal lands, the Board concludes that there would be little effect on public users of aggregate by the elimination of this site from aggregate use. The Board also finds that there would inevitably be effects on recreational uses by permitting mining of the aggregate resource and concludes that the risks of such mining to the Countyla tourist industry would be unacceptably high. Given the relative weight of the two sets of Goal 5 values and the relative availability of aggregate at other sites in the Send -Sisters area, the Hoard determines and concludes that wildlife, open space and scenic values should be used fully, to the detriment of the use of the aggregate resource. 6. Social Conseguences -- The Board adopts the general discussion of this matter at p. 13 of the staff report but rejects the site specific discussion. The Hoard finds that the subject site has open space and scenic values as part of the Tumalo-Sisters area and that the noise, dust, and traffic generated by the use of this site for surface mining adversely affects the tourist industry in this area. 8 -- FINDINGS AND DOCTSION (LIVESAY ROAD) :' ( The Board also finds that the reduction of the numbers of deer and other wildlife affects the tourist industry over and above the inherent value of wildlife to the County. The Board also finds that, because of the availability of other sources of aggregate in the area that the social welfare of County residents and taxpayers remains substantially unaffected by the decision to allow conflicting Goal 5 uses fully. The decision to rezone the subject site to a resource use, rather than a surface mining or rural residential use, will also aid in retaining the wildlife, scenic view and open space character. 7. Energy Consequences -- The Board finds no significant energy consequence of designating the subject site for surface mining use, given the relative availability to public agencies of other sources of aggregate on federal lands. S. Envirgrnnental consequences -- The Board agrees with much of the general discussion of these consequences found at p. 14-15 of the staff report. The Board believes staff testimony that the subject site is within the Tumalo Deer Winter Range and has.high use by deer and medium use by sensitive raptors. The Board also finds that the subject site is adjacent to a 105 -acre wildlife rehabilitation center and believes the testimony of Ma. Steele that the facility would be adversely affected by the location of a surface mining operation in the area. The Board is not convinced, however, that utilization of the subject site for surface mining would ever enhance its environmental value and finds no evidence in the record for such 9 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) a conclusion. Moreover, the Board has determined that adverse environmental consequences on wildlife, as indicated in Mr. Duble"s testimony, is tar greater than set forth in the staff report and, in fact, rises to an unacceptable level. The Board believes the testimony of Dr. Thompson, Mss. Miller and Mr. Steele, that the effects of noise, traffic and occupancy Of the site will have significant adverse effects on wildlife which cannot be mitigated during the period in which mining is proposed to occur. In addition, the Board does not find that the site can ever be restored to wildlife use. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the Board concludes that the subject site should not be designated "SMS' on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance map. Dated this day of , 1989. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Lois Bristow Prante, chair Gene Maudlin, Commissioner Tom Throap, Commissioner 10 -- FINDINGS AND DECISION (LIVESAY ROAD) TOTAL P.11 10 t - 162G EXHIBIT SCHEDULE SITE NO. 341 Date Color Received Exhibit Description Code Paae BOCC Hearing Minutes Fuchsia 103 BOCC Decision Minutes Fuchsia 102 Letter from Jay S. Hampton Peach 19 Letter from Elton F. O'Donnell Peach 68 Packet of Letters from Kathy Miller Peach 28 Petitions Peach 93 Petitions Peach 61 Planning Commission Recommendation Fuchsia 104 Staff Report Yellow 105 79 12-04 Letter from Farrell Pugmire Gray 85 80 01-15 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 84 80 06-12 Letter from Patricia A. Cramer Peach 95 80 07-28 Letter from Kathy (Miller) Harrison Peach 74 85 03-12 Complaint of Unlawful Surface Mining Blue 82 85 06-19 Letter from DOGAMI Buff 22 86 02-09 Letter from Kelly McFarlane Peach 113 86 02-09 Letter from Robert Johnnie Peach 114 86 03-10 Letter from Kathy (Miller) Harrison Peach 71 86 03-10 Packet of Letters on ZC-85-7 Peach 29 86 03-19 Packet of Information on ZC-85-7 Peach 30 88 02-03 Letter from Dave Jaqua Gray 107 88 03-03 Letter from Dave Jaqua Peach 5 88 10-10 Letter from James D. Morgan Peach 15 88 10-10 Letter from James Young Peach 81 88 11-07 Letter from Kathleen Miller Peach 63 88 11-08 Letter from John T. & Helen S. Meier Peach 79 88 11-16 Letter from John & Helen Meier Peach 1 89 01-27 Letter from Dave Jaqua Peach 77 89 01-30 Letter from Kathy Miller Peach 2 89 02-10 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Homer Williamston Peach 75 89 02-13 Letter from John W. Grant Peach 61 89 02-13 Letter from John W. Grant Peach 4 89 02-13 Letter from Gary Hayden Peach 3 89 02-14 Letter from Dorothy Stevens Peach 9 89 02-14 Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Z.J. Peach 7 89 02-14 Letter from. Rich & Corrine Rago Peach 8 89 02-14 Letter from Mr. Kiesow Peach 6 89 02-15 Letter from Frank Bales Peach 14 89 02-15 Letter from Cameron & Martha Thomas Peach 13 89 02-15 Letter from Lloyd T. Hampton Peach 12 89 02-15 Letter from Myron & Marian Gustafson Peach 11 89 02-15 Letter from Connie Bruneau Peach 10 89 02-16 Letter from Mrs. Linda Meyers Peach is 89 02-16 Letter from Barbara Butler Peach 16 99 02-16 Letter from Geroge J. & Barbara Lee Winterfield Peach 17 89 02-17 Letter from Brigitte K. Gager Peach 21 89 02-17 Letter from Robert & Betty Harries Peach 70 01 - 1627 89 02-17 Letter from John T. & Helen S. Meier Peach 23 89 02-17 Letter from Mrs. Willard Mitchell Peach 20 89 02-19 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 78 89 02-19 Letter from Kathy Miller Peach 72 89 02-20 Author Unknown Peach 46 89 02-20 Letter from John T. Meier Peach 36 89 02-20 Letter from Dennis R. Nason Peach 51 89 02-21 Letter from Paul & Annece Davis Peach 40 89 02-21 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Homer Williamston Peach 24 89 02-21 Letter from Robert E. & Betty J. Harries Peach 39 89 02-21 Letter from Milton C. Sparks Peach 41 89 02-21 Letter from Shirley Conley Peach 38 89 02-21 Letter from Donna Kennedy Peach 31 89 02-21 Letter from Karl Buehler Peach 33 89 02-21 Letter from Eric Dolson Blue 101 89 02-21 Letter from Marvin A. Larson Peach 37 89 02-22 Letter from Jennifer Becker Peach 27 89 02-22 Message from Linda Clempel & Joe Cannon Peach 26 89 02-23 DOGAMI Letter Mustard 106 89 02-23 Letter from Duane Hansen Peach 47 89 02-23 Letter from Mark Becker Peach 44 89 02-23 Letter from ODFW Buff 43 89 03-21 Affidavit of Water Well Information Peach 108 89 03-22 Letter from Dennis r. Nason Peach 86 89 03-23 Letter from Eric Dolson Blue 25 89 03-28 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Barry Frazier Peach 48 89 04-01 Letter from Milton & Barbara Sparks Peach 49 89 04-05 Letter from Amos & Amy McDonald Peach 60 89 04-05 Letter from Rod & Sandy McDonald Peach 112 89 04-12 Letter from Dr. & Mrs Ray Walpole Peach 59 89 04-13 Letter from Ken Davis Peach 34 89 04-13 Letter from Barbara Lee & George Winterfield Peach 55 89 04-14 Letter from Isabel Smith Peach 54 89 04-18 Letter from Milton & Barbara Sparks Peach 50 89 04-18 Letter from Corrine Rago Peach 53 89 04-20 Letter from Charles& Marilyn Pavore Peach 56- 89 04-22 Letter from Ian & Debra Carter Peach 67- 89 04-22 Letter from Dennis R. Nason Peach 52 89 04-22 Letter from Robert & Betty Harries Peach 42 89 04-23 Letter from Alan & Linda Parmenter Peach 35 89 04-23 Letter from Barbara Butler Peach 58 89 04-24 Letter from Cameron B. Thomas Peach 57 89 04-26 Letter from Martha Thomas Peach 32 89 05-01 Letter from Grace Bons Williamston Peach 109 89 05-04 Letter from Richard Rago Peach 80 89 05-05 Letter from Debbie & Ray Wagner Peach 89 89 05-05 Letter from Ponderosa Cascade Homeowners Peach 87 89 05-05 Letter from Michael Nelson Peach 91 89 05-05 Letter from Debbie & Ray Wagner Peach 92 89 05-09 Letter from R. T. Panuccio Peach 111 89 05-09 Letter from C. W. Johnson Peach 88 99 05-10 Letter from Eric Dolson Blue 100 89 05-12 Letter from Ken Davis Peach 83 89 05-12 Letter from Steven D. Olds Peach 110 1011 1628 89 05-16 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Barry Frazier Peach 65 89 05-16 Letter from Roger Borine (OR Hunters Assoc) Peach 69 89 05-16 Letter from Sandra Olds Peach 94 89 05-17 Letter from the Nasons'Peach 64 89 05-19 Neil Goldschmidt's Letters Peach 90 89 05-30 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 73 89 06-05 Letter from Warren & Rosemary Johnson Peach 76 89 08-08 Letter from Dave Jaqua Peach 99 89 09-18 Diversion Agreement Blue 97 89 12-08 Memo from R. Green re: Diversion Agreement Blue 98 90 02-22 Extension of Divers' -on Order Blue 96 10 It -].62,9 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 345 Site Number 345, occupying tax lot 1000 in Township 16 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 35, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 345 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located in the southeast quarter of section 35. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned F-2 and WA. Adjacent land is zoned F-2 and WA. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 101 1630 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located off a logging road in a forested area. Property for over one mile in all directions is owned by the subject property owner. The site has in the past been used as a cinder source for logging roads. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route, with medium frequency of use, and medium use by sensitive raptors. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include further destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by continued surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and continued human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 i0l - 1632 suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 L.0 1 1633 gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and; this site has a significant quantity of cinder and is located nearby logging roads. C. This site is already in existence. d. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 �`0 13. Economic Consequences. The economic tecting the cinder resource relates surface mining on adjacent uses, the commercial commodity and the impacts ment in the mining industry and the ities foregone by development of the t r 1634 consequences of pro - to the impacts of value of cinder as a of protecting employ - development opportun- site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts.. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 Al -, 1635 some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 101 - 163G increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictinu Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b) and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 1.0 .. - 16 :3 i a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. Wildlife conditions as set forth in the ODFW letter of August 10, 1989 recommending deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The Board finds that processing on site will allowed. Conflictinq Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 0l - 1638 mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 345 r A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #345 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET 4. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET/MAP 5. NOTIFICATION MAPS 6. STAFF REPORT 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR �� -� 1 6 4 U 101 - 1 6 4 1 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 346 Site Number 346, occupying tax lot 1000 in Township 16 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 36, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 346 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located near the center of section 36 in the middle of forest land. The site is owned by Crown Pacific and is zoned F-2. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 10-1 -, 1E42 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has approximately 50,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site has in the past been used as a borrow pit for maintaining logging roads. The site is over one mile from any property not under the ownership of the applicant. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. (1) Wildlife. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has recognized this site to contain important deer habitat. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 \�Y „ 01 -:1643 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 �.i 1645 Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 Al f. this site has a significant quantity of cinders, and the site is well located to serve as a source of cinders for nearby logging roads. C. This site is already in existence. d. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 i0"l 154 r 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby logging roads would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 �. 1648 with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b) and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 [ 'l - 1 643 Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. Wildlife conditions as set forth in the ODFW letter of August 10, 1989 recommending this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 1� ;C v iol - 1650 The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. (The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway.] Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 346 All aNBIV A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #346 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. MAP 4. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET 5. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SHEET/MAP SHEET 6. CROWN PACIFIC 7. NOTIFICATION MAPS 8. STAFF REPORT ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 347 a0-1 - 1653 Site Number 347, occupying tax lot 300 in Township 16 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 1, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 347 comprises approximately 60 acres and is located north of Dusty Loop west of Gerking Market Road. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned SMR. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and EFU-40. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - �1 ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 347s13� �. 16b4 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 10,000 cubic yards of fill dirt. 2. Site Characteristics. This site has been used as a fill borrow site in the past. The site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. The site is located in a rural residential and farm use area. There are numerous homes along Dusty Loop which are within one-half mile of the site. To the east of the site is a ranch and the rest of the surrounding property is natural range land. 3. Conclusionary Findings. The Board finds that the subject site has been used as a borrow pit for fill dirt. The Board finds that there is no evidence to support establishing this type of dirt resource as a protected Goal 5 resource. The fill material located on this site is a common material and shows no evidence to suggest that it has the value of select fill which is an inventory Goal 5 resource. Further, the Board finds that there are numerous residential uses in close proximity to the subject property which decreases the site's desirability for fill material. Based upon the fact that there is no evidence to support protecting this type of material, the Board finds that this site should not be zoned for surface mining. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 347 I' CX.�rpira TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #347 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MEMO FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 3. LEGEND ON AGGREGATE RESOURCE INVENTORY 4. EVALUATION SHEET 5. NOTIFICATION MAPS 6. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 7. MYLAR 8. LETTER FROM DUSTY LOOP RESIDENTS 8/13/89 9. LETTER FROM MONA PRUITT 8/3/89 10. LETTER FROM SHIRLEY & ROGER DEMARIS 8-9-89 1 ?cad heaefr� M Ind-� 12, �cd COmm�:�Sion2rS de.66ior\ ryfmwUS :16b5 . ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 351 Site Number 351, occupying tax lots 1401, 1700 and 2000 in Township 16 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 351 comprises approximately 19 acres and is located along Innes Market Road, roughly one and one-half miles west of Cline Falls Road. The site is owned by Pat Gisler is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and RR -10. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the econo- mic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the con- flicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding area was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 L01 - 1657 Testimony was also received from two surrounding property owners indicating concern for traffic, noise, dust and a danger- ous corner that the site is located on. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 150,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is an existing surface mine which been used intermittently in the past. In is located on the southwest flanks of a small butte and the site is vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. The site is located in an area of rural residential and farm properties. Directly to the south is a home on the south side of the road, across from the entrance to the site. To the west are residential acreage properties. To the north and east in a large farm. The site is visible from the south and west. There is a home to the south within 250 feet of the site. The site has received approval from DOGAMI as a site which was suspected of surface mining prior to 1972. The site was allowed to be mined as part of a zone change Z80-14, approved by Deschutes County from EFU-20 to SM in 1980. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Scenic values. The proximity of the subject site to collector streets in the area raises a concern for scenic values. However, the RR -10 zoning in the area is not a resource zone which takes into account any specific scenic value. Conflicts There is testimony that very little cinders have been removed from the site in the last ten years. The conflicts on resource values would increase if the historic mining activity level of the site increases. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 ti i0 -, 1658 human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and EFU-20 zones would include: (1) At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SMR zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture or forestry may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated por- tions of the site. Uses in the RR -10 zone would also be conflicting in this regard, except for farms uses on unexcavated portions of the site. (2) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and off-road vehicle tracks. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly on residential uses. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The public testimony indicated that numerous persons who live in the area were concerned that the site would change from an inactive cinder pit to an active cinder pit and have a significant impact on the character of the rural residen- tial neighborhood. This was supported by Mr. Gisler's comments that little activity has occurred on the site since 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 ti f o .l .., 1659 1979 or 1980. Testimony regarding the serious turn problem and the access road was uncontradicted and supported by the maps in the file. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts, the conflicting uses in the zone are as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and visually disturb the 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 ioi - 1660 landscape. Such impacts would adversely affect the at- tributes that caused the residents of adjacent rural reside- ntial properties to locate there. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued or increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. There is some degree of need in the County for cinders and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 L 01 - 1661 would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that states that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads any longer. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggre- gate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valu- able sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect ag- gregate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 �31ti)Z'r 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the conflicting natural resources are more important than the cinder resource based on the following facts: (a) Failure to zone this site will not adversely affect the supply of cinders in the county; (b) There are other cinder sources in the County that the County is protecting that can supply cinders for road maintenance needs; (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that the conflicting natural resources should be protected and the cinder resource should not be. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16- 010(2) the conflicting resources should be protected fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 in the zone. Furthermore, use, and after reclamation become available for other 1663 surface mining is a transitional the land surface would then uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area, depending upon the level of use. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity could be high in this case due to the fact that it would be located immediately adjacent to a subdivision. Public testimony from nearby property owners illuminated concerns about the noise impacts of surface mining and its impact on the scenery surrounding their properties. Some of those consequences have already been imposed upon the surrounding properties due to the fact that this is an existing mine. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby roadways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. On the other hand, much of the area within 1/2 mile of the mine has already been developed or planned for development. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 ! 011 - 1 664 traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The protection of conflicting land uses could have the effect of causing higher transportation costs to the extent that denial of mining approval would cause cinders to be hauled to their point of use from more remote sites. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, there is an added cost of .22 per ton mile from extraction sites to the point of use. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by develop- ment where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater distan- ces. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 351 i o -L - '1665 to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Mineral Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that relative to one another the conflicting uses are more important than the cinder resource. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses;] Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will protect fully the conflicting uses at and surround- ing the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting mineral resources, as the Board finds that there has never been a concern about the adequacy of cinder availability in the County and that it has chosen to zone and protect 24 cinder sites representing 21,830,000 cubic yards of cinders. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION,- SITE NO. 351 T F-X-tL_blTA iol "-166c TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #351 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. MAP 4. MAP 5. MAP 6. MAP 7. LETTER FROM PATRICK M. GISLER DATED 4/15/86 8. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/14/82 9. BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. (ZONING ERROR) 10. VIC RUSSELL AND ASSOCIATES 11. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 1/26/82 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/23/81 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/19/81 14. ORDINANCE #80-211 15. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 10/15/80 16. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATED 7/9/80 17. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 7/9/80 18. LETTER FROM DONALD H. FARNESS DATED 7/2/80 19. FINDINGS & DECISION DATED 6/26/80 20. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 5/27/80 21. STAFF REPORT DATED 5/27/80 22. SAME AS ABOVE #21 1 1667 23. LETTER FORM DONALD H. FARNESS DATED 5/20/80 24. MEMO DATED 5/7/80 25. LOOK UP SHEET 26. MAILING LIST FOR SITE PLAN TRANSMITTALS 27. REVISED TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR ZONE CHANGE 28. REVISED TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR ZONE CHANGE 29. ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION DATED 4/29/80 30. APPLICATION REVIEW FILE SHEET 31. APPLICATION REVIEW FILE SHEET 32. LETTER FROM DANIEL E. VANVACTOR DATED 12/28/79 33. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/27/79 34. MINOR LAND PARTITION FORM 35. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL #1 36. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL #2 37. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL #3 38. NOTIFICATION MAPS 39. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 40. MYLAR 41. LETTER FROM RINEHART 8/9/89 42. LETTER FROM JOYCE GARDNER 8/9/89 43, 4t-1, �� „L Comrri�sSion�cS l�Qerlcr..� rri�ns�s 2 0-t 16168 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 355/356 Site Number 355, occupying tax lot 2100, and Site Number 356 occupying tax lot 2000 in Township 16 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 35, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989 and August 9, 1989, respectively. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these sites. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject sites, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that these sites should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 355 is owned by Cascade Pumice, Inc., and Site 356 is owned by Tumalo Irrigation District and leased to Cascade Pumice, Inc. Site 355 consists of approximately 40 acres and is located in the southwest corner of Site No. 356. Site 356 comprises 120 acres. The sites are located north of Tumalo Reservoir Road and west of Mock Road, approximately ten miles northwest of Bend. Both sites are currently zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and MUA-10. Both sites are located in a wildlife area combining zone because they are located in the Tumalo deer winter range. This site was identified as containing aggregate and pumice resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict - 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 10"1 1663 ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the operator of the site and neighborhood residents. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site 355 contains 750,000 to 1,000,000 cubic yard of excellent quality pumice. Site 356 originally contained 2,000,000 cubic yards of pumice, however, mining has proceeded since the initial inventory information was submitted. Currently there are 500,000 cubic yards or less of pumice left on the site as on-going mining operations continue. 2. Site characteristics. Site 355 consists of level pasture land which has not in the past been used for mining. Site 356 adjoins site 355 and slopes upward to the north. Site 356 has been an active pumice operation which was allowed by Deschutes County as part of a surface mining zone change approval in 1982. The surrounding area consists primarily of hobby farms which are 20-40 acres in size. The site is in an active pumice mining area. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range, with medium frequency of use. The surrounding properties all have a Wildlife Area combining zone, indicating that this area is part of the Tumalo winter deer range. There is also medium sensitive raptor use in the area. Neigh- borhood residents testified to seeing eagles in the area. 2. Open space. The surrounding zoning of EFU-20 and EFU- 40 indicates high open space values. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 �f� i0_1 - 1670 Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has characterized the impact of noise on deer at this site as medium. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would have an adverse impact on wildlife, open space and scenic resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the SM, EFU-20, EFU-40, and MUA-10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) The Board finds that the site is already committed to surface mining and that the existing surface mining 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 conflicts with other the SM zone in that the site for mining established. allowed and conditional uses in occupation of the surface area of prevents other uses from being (2) The impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensi- tive uses (as defined below) that could be established on unoccupied portions of the site. As a practical matter, such conflicts are not of great consequence, since the owner of the site has chosen to commit the site to surface mining. Surrounding zones (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, other mining or geothermal uses, personal landing strip uses, forest products processing uses, and hydroelectric uses. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and community and park -type uses. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing are conflicting in that full protection of those use would preclude continued mining at the site or cause limita- tions to be put on mining activities. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, open space, and scenic waterway values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and exacerbate an existing scar in the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. Site 356 is covered by an existing valid County site and reclamation plan, and site 355 would have to go through the County site plan process in order to receive approval. Assurances could be made that the reclamation will improve natural values to the extent practical. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 )9 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Although pumice is not as necessary a mineral as sand and gravel is, it is still a basic material and chances are that energy would be expended in obtaining a substitute material. There would be no negative effect in protecting the pumice resource. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of Goal 5 resources could preclude or curtail mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that pumice resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufac- turing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Pumice is not thought to be in short supply in the County. This coupled with the fact that pumice is not as essential a mineral as is aggregate would make for much less of an economic effect if conflicting resources were to be pro- tected. Still, pumice does have value as a material for building blocks and as an export for the local economy. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that pumice is in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social conse- quences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the pumice resource would not have the same kind of social consequence that failure to protect aggregate sources could. In general, whatever the social consequences of not allowing increased pumice mining at the various pumice sites, the effect would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, dust traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of scenic resources and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with mineral resources, wildlife resources and scenic resources 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 101 - 16 l4 are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy consequences from preserving the conflicting Goal 5 resources would be neutral for the reasons set forth in paragraph 8. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the Goal 5 resources and the aggregate resource are impor- tant relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Pumice has value for the economy of Central Oregon as an economic commodity. Given the quality and quantity of pumice present at this site, this is a significant pumice site. (b) This site has been a mining site of long standing. (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the Goal 5 resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the pumice resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, there is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project as set forth above. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would most likely have neutral or slightly positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some source in any event. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 11 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts can place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in rural sites such as this can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater overall energy consumption. Increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of_ AQctregate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting residential uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to develop- ment of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. (c) The use at Tumalo Park and sites along the Deschutes River are important as a major recreational site in the County. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 i.0l - 16Y7 existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 L01 1673 The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 Lot - :1679 aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 355/356 ,16 l`'jC (4 ( B l rt Ar TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #355 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. INVENTORY SHEET 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. MAP 5. DOGAMI RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 1/20/78 6. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION DATED 2/3/78 7. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION DATED 2/18/80 8. LETTER FROM TUMALO IRRIGATION DIST. ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 5/27/80 9. DOGAMI ON SITE INSPECTION REPORT 5/29/80 10. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 2/3/81 11. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/8/82 12. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/3/83 13. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/2/84 14. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/4/85 15. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/3/87 16. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 3/1/88 17. INVENTORY FROM CASCADE PUMICE 18. ABREVIATED STAFF REPORT 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 21. LETTER FROM BARBARA LYNCH & KEN & JOSEPHINE, JOHN DATED 8/10/89 22. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 23. PHOTOS 24. LETTER FROM DAVID DAVIDSON DATED 8/8/89 25. LETTER FROM DON MC FERRAN 8/15/89 3. BeGAMI eE"-�r-i aT.-T_r-iN P£-} miT—I'r.�£''-'&'/'b/9.'_ 6ct"� LITS L"-('�Yll'i,r�3=C..;1P1`- I 8. 9. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/8/82 10. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 2/3/81 11. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 2/18/8.0 12. DOGAMI REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/29/80 13. DOGAMI REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/3/78 14. INVENTORY OF TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT RESOURCES 15. DOGAMI RENEWAL APPLICATION 16. CASCADE PUMICE INVENTORY LIST 17. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/1/88 18. ABBREVIATED STAFF REPORT 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 20. NOTIFICATION MAPS 21. LETTER FROM KEN & JOSEPHINE JOHN 8/10/89 22. LETTER FROM CYNTHIA & SAMUEL DIBBINS 8/6/89 1 °" TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #356�., 1. EXHIBIT LIST, A, 2. TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT MINING RESOURCES 3. INVENTORY SHEET 4. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/3/87 5. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/4/85 6. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/2/84 7. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/3/83 8. 9. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/8/82 10. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 2/3/81 11. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 2/18/8.0 12. DOGAMI REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/29/80 13. DOGAMI REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/3/78 14. INVENTORY OF TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT RESOURCES 15. DOGAMI RENEWAL APPLICATION 16. CASCADE PUMICE INVENTORY LIST 17. DOGAMI GRANT OF LIMITED EXCEPTION DATED 3/1/88 18. ABBREVIATED STAFF REPORT 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 20. NOTIFICATION MAPS 21. LETTER FROM KEN & JOSEPHINE JOHN 8/10/89 22. LETTER FROM CYNTHIA & SAMUEL DIBBINS 8/6/89 1 °" w 23. MYLAR 24. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 25. LETTER FROM DAN KEARNS 5/26/89 26. PETITION 5/27/89 27. LETTER FROM DICK & JOANNE NORTHTON 5/29/89 28. LETTER FROM ROBERT LIST 5/29/89 29. LETTER FROM DAN KEARNS 5/30/89 30. LETTER FROM T.C. LYSTER 5/31/89 31. LETTER FROM DAN KEARNS 7/9/89 32. LETTER FROM RICHARD & JOANNE NORTHTON 7/29/89 33. LETTER FROM NANCY GLENN COLEMAN 8/4/89 34. LETTER FROM DIANA MCCLASKY 8/6/89 35. LETTER FROM DIANA MCCLASKY 8/6/89 GROUP II IN ELASTIC BAND SP -82-32 25. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN LETTER DATED 5/16/83 26. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT - SITE PLANS DATED 11/3/82 27. LETTER TO CASCADE PUMICE COMPANY DATED 10/29/82 28. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT DATED 10/19/82 29. LETTER TO SURFACE MINING NEIGHBORS DATED 9/30/82 30. RECLAMATION PLAN GUIDELINE AND FORMAT DATED 9/16/82 31. SAME AS ABOVE #30 32. LETTER FROM MARTIN E. HANSEN DATED 9/15/82 33. LETTER FROM MARTIN E. HANSEN DATED 8/30/82 34. LETTER TO SURFACE MINING NEIGHBORS DATED 8/25/82 2 i 101 - 1683 35. LETTER FROM AL & PAT TELLIN DATED 8/3/82 36. SITE PLAN TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED 8/2/82 37. SAME AS ABOVE #36 38. SAME AS ABOVE #36 39. RECEIPT FROM DESCHUTES COUNTY DATED 7/14/82 40. SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION DATED 7/12/82 41. LETTER FROM STEVEN J. SCHUSTER DATED 6/2/82 42. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/10/82 43. MAP 44. DIAGRAM 45. MAP 46. APPLICATION FILE SHEET 47. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT - SITE PLANS 48. SAME AS ABOVE #47 49. MAILING LIST FOR SITE PLAN TRANSMITTALS 50. ADDRESS LABELS FOR SITE PLAN SP -82-32 51. Le4ty, jvoyn bbFs, Lk--�, q- ib --Zi 52-. 1) Ytnc, YYtl7 53: i5oz,C6 0 Comrn"!a&,oner-s C1QGl:aan tYiinwjbE`- 3 X01 -1654 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 357 Site Number 357, occupying tax lot 1100, 1400 and 1300 in Township 16 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 36, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these sites. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject sites, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that these sites should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 357 is owned by Tumalo Irrigation District and is located one-half mile north of Tumalo on Tumalo Reservoir Road and encompasses the south half of Laidlaw Butte. Site 357 comprises 560 acres. The site is currently zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned SM, EFU-20 and MUA-10. This site was identified as containing aggregate, pumice and cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inven- tory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to deter- mine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 o_. -1 1685 In addition, testimony was received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the operator of the site and neighborhood residents. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The site contains 500,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate; 1 million cubic yards of cinders and 500,000 cubic yards of good quality pumice. 2. Site characteristics. The subject site is a historic mine which has had mining activity for at least 20 years. The site is located in the area of two pumice mining sites. (Site nos. 355 and 356) The site encompasses the top and southerly flank of Laidlaw Butte. The surrounding area consists primarily of hobby farms which are 20-40 acres in size. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range, with medium frequency of use. The surrounding properties all have a Wildlife Area combining zone, indicating that this area is part of the Tumalo winter deer range. There is also medium sensitive raptor use in the area. Neigh- borhood residents testified to seeing eagles in the area. 2. Open space. The surrounding zoning of EFU-20 and EFU- 40 indicates high open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION SITE NO. 357 c'+ (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has characterized the impact of noise on deer at this site as medium. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would have an adverse impact on wildlife, open space and scenic resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the SM, EFU-20, EFU-40, and MUA-10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) The Board finds that the site is already committed to surface mining and that the existing surface mining conflicts with other allowed and conditional uses in the SM zone in that occupation of the surface area of the site for mining prevents other uses from being established. (2) The impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensi- tive uses (as defined below) that could be established on unoccupied portions of the site. As a practical matter, such conflicts are not of great consequence, since the owner of the site has chosen to commit the site to surface mining. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 Surrounding zones (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, other mining or geothermal uses, personal landing strip uses, forest products processing uses, and hydroelectric uses. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and community and park -type uses. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing are conflicting in that full protection of those use would preclude continued mining at the site or cause limita- tions to be put on mining activities. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, open space, and scenic waterway values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and exacerbate an existing scar in the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Enerav Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Although pumice is not as necessary a mineral as sand and gravel is, it is still a basic material and chances are that energy would be expended in obtaining a substitute material. There would be no negative effect in protecting the pumice resource. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of Goal 5 resources could preclude or curtail mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 0l 1689 displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that pumice, cinders and aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Pumice is not thought to be in short supply in the County. This coupled with the fact that pumice is not as essential a mineral as is aggregate would make for much less of an economic effect if conflicting resources were to be pro- tected. Still, pumice does have value as a material for building blocks and as an export for the local economy. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that pumice is in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social conse- quences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the pumice resource would not have the same kind of social consequence that failure to protect aggregate sources could. In general, whatever the social consequences of not allowing increased pumice mining at the various pumice sites, the effect would not be great. The importance of aggregate is outlined in the comprehensive plan. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, dust traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of scenic resources and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with mineral resources, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy consequences from preserving the conflicting Goal 5 resources would be neutral for the reasons set forth in paragraph 8. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The value of aggreage is clear and outlined in the comprehensive plan. The Board finds that based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the Goal 5 resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: 6 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 357 ..�: s,li 1 o► l - 16U0 (a) Pumice has value for the economy of Central Oregon as an economic commodity. Given the quality and quantity of pumice present at this site, this is a significant pumice site. (b) This site has been a mining site of long standing. (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the Goal 5 resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the pumice resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, there is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 1011 — 1bu1 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project as set forth above. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would most likely have neutral or slightly positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some source in any event. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 11 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts can place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in rural sites such as this can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 t(j-1 1692 supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater overall energy consumption. Increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting residential uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to develop- ment of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. (c) The use at Tumalo Park and sites along the Deschutes River are important as a major recreational site in the County. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 iol - 1693 (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 ; 1)0 \. iii -:1694 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 357 s�- TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #357 iol 1" 1695 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE MAP 3. LETTER FROM TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT DATED 5/27/8 4. ABBREVIATED STAFF REPORT 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. NOTIFICATION MAPS 7. MAP 8. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 3/1/88 9. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/1/88 10. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 8/27/87 11. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 3/5/87 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/26/87 13. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/4/85 14. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/24/84 15. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/16/83 16. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/3/83 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 4/9/82 18. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/4/82 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 5/21/81 20. APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 4/22/81 21. TABLE REGARDING DISTRICT OWNED LANDS 22. INFORMATION TABLE SUBMITTED BY CASCADE PUMICE CO. 23. LETTER FROM JANET L. BOETTCHER DATED 5/27/80 24. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/7/78 25. REPORT OF ON—SITE INSPECTION 26. MYLAR 27. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 28. LETTER FROM PAT & AL TELLIN 8/14/89 29. LETTER FROM BOB BARSS 8/15/89 30. PHOTOGRAPHS 32 3oa-rd � Comms ��ione-� d2L�Sia� m ��:�-E�s J(),I - 1697 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 358 Site Number 358, occupying tax lots 200, 300, 1100, 1101, 1103, 1200 and 1301 in Township 16 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 32D, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that prelimin- ary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 358 comprises approximately 5 acres and is located north of Highway 20 West in Tumalo. The site is owned by Pat Gisler and is zoned RSR -M. Surrounding property is zoned RSR -M and RSC. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 -to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 101 - 1693 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site, a letter and testimony from Pat Gisler and numerous letters in opposition from surrounding property owners. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of aggregate which ODOT specifications for road material. The Board's inventory findings on this site are set forth in the inventory ordinance, Deschutes County Ordinance No. 90-025. 2. Site Characteristics. This is a small site located north of the Bend Aggregate plant in Tumalo across Highway 20 West. Access to the site is off of Cook Avenue. The site is essentially level and several feet below the elevation of Highway 20 West, which makes the southern boundary of the site. The site is currently developed with an old house next to the highway. The newly remodeled Tumalo mall building is located to the east of the site. The surround- ing neighborhood is made up of the Bend Aggregate plant across Highway 20 to the north, numerous houses and commer- cial within one-half mile and is located near the middle of the Tumalo rural service center. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as having wildlife values. The Board finds that there are no specific wildlife values on the site due to its proximity to Highway 20 West and the considerable amount of residential and commercial development in the area. 2. Open space values. The subject property is within an LM corridor along Highway 20. However, the LM designa- tion does not include the subject property. The site is readily visible from the highway since it is located below the highway grade. The Board finds that it would not be possible to screen the site from view of the highway. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and testimony from surrounding residents, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Testimony from area residents raised the concern that fugitive dust emissions from the site and trucks hauling material away from the site could interfere with the views from Highway 20. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, and accounting for topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact open space values in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the RSR -M and RSC zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, and processing) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. Considerable testimony in the record indicates the potential for significant impacts on the Tumalo rural service center due to the number of dwelling units in the area. Nearly the entire Tumalo rural service center in within one-half mile of this site. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 .. )CP Loll - 1100 2. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. 3. Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. This could impact all uses in the RSR -M and RSC zones, except that agricultural uses could be made on the unexcavated portions of the property. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, all possible uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. This problem is amplified by the small size and triangular shape of the site. Requiring setbacks of 250 feet from all existing conflicting uses on surrounding properties would significantly restrict surface mining at the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and open space do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create unsightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on open space values. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on the surround property owners due to the close proximity to numerous small lots. The Board finds that it would not be possible to adequately mitigate these impacts in an area with such a high level of existing development. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that preservation of this site would likely have overall positive energy consequences due to the fact that this site is located close to development activities. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 L 0' - 1.702 not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The Board finds that given the small lot size and the setbacks necessary to reduce con- flicts, this site would not contribute significantly to the amounts of aggregate available in the County. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimitable to the protection of open space and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggre- gate resource, wildlife resources and open space resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site could involve increased haulage distances of aggregate materials to the development projects occurring in the Tumalo area. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would therefore more likely than not have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources values at the site are 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 101 - IYU3 relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: a. The existence of the LM corridor along Highway 20 could be a conflicting resource value. The Board finds that it is not possible to screen the subject site from view of persons travelling on Highway 20 West. b. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. Therefore, the Board finds that the existing scenic resource should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The Board finds that while the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of sur- rounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 0 1 04 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by residents of the surrounding area, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, blasting, and fugitive dust produced by the proposed surface mine. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals could have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to development sites are positive since the Bend Aggregate processing site is located across Highway 20 to the south. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 13 above. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments in the Tumalo area would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, in- creased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting Uses. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 it ,^ / i P. 1: Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. THe lot is a small one and after accounting for set- backs to help reduce conflicts, there would be very little resource available to mine. C. Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commit- ment is accompanied by economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 24. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting open space resource and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate, which com- bined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 358 w" I (,) ,I - 17 0 6 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 361 Site Number 361, occupying tax lot 2800 in Township 16 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 22C, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 361 comprises approximately 41 acres and is located on the southwest end of Long Butte, approximately one - mile northwest of Deschutes Junction. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Division and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10 ane MUA-10. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 700,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located just off the end of Kiowa Road along the southern flanks of Long Butte. This is an existing cinder pit which has been heavily used in the past. The unexcavated portion of the site is naturally vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. To the west and north of the site are two smaller cinder pits. Further to the west and north in Whispering Pines subdi- vision. This subdivision is sparsely developed with mobile homes and site -built homes. Some subdivision homes to the east overlook the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. Long Butte is readily visible from the surrounding area. The adjacent EFU-20 and EFU-40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 i0l 1 108 indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 and EFU-20 surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and EFU-20 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 _L011 - 1709 The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 i [� .l -, 1 110 mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97 and Deschutes Market Road, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 _i J *r the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimitable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 0*)8 1112 important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 I () .I - 1 113 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con - 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 1114 flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 14 b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 t x�'i. i0l - I-11-1 The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 361 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #361 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 4. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/11/87 5. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/25/86 6. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/1/85 7. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/25/85 8. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/12/84 9. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/20/83 10. REPORT -OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/17/83 11. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/2/83 12. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/2/82 13. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 9/24/81 14. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/20/81 15. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/8/80 16. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/1/77 17. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/16/88 18. GRANT OF. TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/17/86 FOR E.W. BEAVER 19. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 20. NOTIFICATION MAPS 21. MYLAR 22. LETTER FROM DAN GRIGGS 8/15/89 23. LETTER FROM MARY BOUNBOW 8/2/89 24. LETTER FROM JACK SHUGART 8/7/89 25. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 26. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/15/89 2 c SURFACE MLNING EXHIBITS: 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Map 3 - Property description TAI;I,IF OF CONI'FNTS 4 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 9/11/87 Grant of Limited Exemption issued 9/25/86 i 6 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 10/1/85 s~ 7 - Report of On-site Inspection dated 3/25/85 8 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 9/12/84 9 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 9/20/83 10 - Report of On-site Inspection dated 6/17/83 11 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/2/83 12 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/2/82 13 - Report of On-site inspection dated 9/24/81 14 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 2/20/81 15 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 2/28/80 16 - Grant of Limited Exemption issued 3/1/77 t, 2n � . ee C� BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY In the Matter of the Determination of the Environmental, Social, Energy, and Economic Consequences of the Use of Inventory Site No. 368, the "Twin Bridges" For Surface Mining FINDINGS Findings, Decision, And Program To Implement Goal 5 The Twin Bridges Site, hereinafter referred to as Site No. 368, also described as Tax ID No. 161220200, 201, 202, came before the Board of Commissioners ("Board") for hearing on May 31, 1989. On May 31, 1989, a preliminary decision was made on this site. By adoption of these Findings, Decision and Program to Implement Goal 5, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board is to determine whether Site No. 368, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations as Surface Mining ("SM"). For the reasons given below, the Board determines that Site No. 368 should be so classified. 1. Preliminary Findings 1 Site No. 368 was placed on the Deschutes County's Goal 5 Inventory for Mineral and Aggregate Resources by Ordinance No. 88-039 and as amended by Ordinance No. 90-025. Public hearings on the inventory were conducted by the Deschutes County Hearings Officer during June 1988. In September, 1988, the Hearings Officer made a recommendation to the Board on the County's inventory. The Board conducted hearings on the inventory on October 11, 1988 and on December 14, 1988 when the inventory was adopted. 2 Thereafter, pursuant to OAR 660-16-005 and 660-16-010, the County conducted further hearings to identify conflicts with the inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites, to determine the ESEE consequences and to develop a program to achieve Goal 5. 3 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-000 et sea, these Findings, Decision and Program Implementing Goal --5 outline the County's reasons and explain the County's program implementing Goal 5 and are made a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 1 _i. 01 -­ 1722 2. Applicable Criteria 1 The criteria applicable to the decision are Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rule, OAR 660-16-010 et seg. To the extent that other Statewide Planning Goals are applicable, appropriate findings have been made in Ordinance No. 90-029, which adopts the Findings, Decisions and Programs Implementing Goal 5 for each of the inventoried aggregate resource sites. By this reference said findings are incorporated herein. 2 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-005 and 660-16-010, once an aggregate and mineral resource site has been placed on the County's Goal 5 inventory, the County must identify conflicting uses which could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource. Both the impacts of the conflicting uses on the resource site and the resource's impacts on the conflicting uses must be considered in the determination of the ESEE consequences. The ESEE analysis enables the County to explain why decisions are made for specific sites. The Goal 5 rule then requires the County to develop a program to achieve the goal by resolving the conflicts in any one of three ways: protect the resource site, by allowing conflicting uses fully, or by limiting conflicting uses. 3 By Ordinance No. 90-014, the County amended the Deschutes County surface mining ordinance, Ordinance No. PL -15. Ordinance No. 90-014, incorporated herein by reference. This ordinance authorizes the development and use of inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites in accordance with appropriate standards. It also adopts the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone ("SMIA") which has application to all properties located within one-half mile of the boundary of an inventoried surface mining resource site (the "impact area"). The SMIA zone regulates uses within the impact area to reduce or resolve conflicts with inventoried surface mining sites. 4 Based on the ESEE analysis of Site No. 368, as detailed below, a program to achieve Goal 5 has been developed to balance the ESEE consequences so as to allow the conflicting uses, but in a limited way in order to protect the aggregate resource site to the desired extent. A 660-16-010(3) decision has been made. Ordinance No. 90-014 implements this decision by designating the allowed uses or activities permitted outright or conditionally and the specific standards and limitations applicable to such uses or activities on Site No. 368 and in the impact area. 3. Exhibits 1 Prior to the hearing on Site No. 368, a staff report was prepared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflicting resources and uses. The staff report identified conflicting resources and uses, their impacts, and evaluated the ESEE consequences of protecting the aggregate resource or in the alternative protecting the conflicting resources or uses. x 19 V, o:1 17'3 2 At the hearings on Site No. 368, testimony was received from the owner/operator as well as from other interested members of the public. Expert testimony was received on the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource, as well as on the impacts associated with the protection of the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. 3 The owner/operator submitted a surface mining plan detailing the operation, extraction and reclamation of the aggregate resource at Site No. 368. 4. Inventory 1 By Ordinance No. 90-025, Site No. 368 was placed on the County's Goal 5 Inventory for aggregate and mineral resources. By this reference, the Board incorporates the record, the Hearings Officer's report and the findings related to the inventory determination in Ordinance No. 90-025 of the County's Goal 5 aggregate resources. 2 Expert site-specific technical information was submitted for the inventory at Site No. 368 regarding the location of the aggregate resource, its quantity and its quality. 3 Based on that site-specific expert technical information on location, quantity and quality as detailed in this Section 4 and the findings for the overall inventory adopted in Ordinance No. 90- 025, the Board accepts the Hearings Officer's determination that Site No. 368 is a very significant site in the County's resource inventory. 4 The Board finds that the location component of the Goal 5 inventory decision includes a determination of the physical location of the resource on site, i.e., the area and dimensions of the resource location at the site and the location of the resource vis-a-vis its market destination. The latter is principally included in the determination of the site's significance. 5 The Board finds that Site No. 368 is located 2 miles from Tumalo on Cline Falls Road and 7 miles from Bend. It consists of approximately 200 acres. The site has access to Cline Falls Road and Twin Bridges Road. 6 Site No. 368's geographic location places it in close proximity to the County's major aggregate market area, i.e. the Bend urban area. Because of Site No. 368's geographic location, the aggregate need only be transported approximately 7 miles to its principal market destination and 3 miles to Bend Aggregate & Paving Co's aggregate processing facility. The relatively short haulage distance is an important consideration in determining the significance of a resource site because the cost of transporting aggregate is an important component in establishing the overall cost of the resource at the market area. The Board finds that the cost of transporting aggregate is approximately .25 per ton mile and that a haulage distance of 10-15 miles from the market area is the maximum area for which these resources can be commercially usable. The Board finds that it is appropriate to consider market location factors in determining relative significance given that, unlike other Goal 5 resources, the significance of aggregate resource is measured largely by their commercial value. Market location factors include the proximity to principal market for aggregate usage and to transportation routes. The close proximity of Site No. 368 to the resource's major market area, and its adequate access to transportation routes is a significant positive factor in the determination of the site's significance in the county's overall aggregate inventory. 7 With respect to the location of the resource on site, the Board accepts and believes the expert testimony of Century West Engineering Corporation ("Century West") which documented an on- site technical investigation of the location of the resource on site as well as the resource's quantity and quality. Century West's expert analysis included test pit excavations, material identification and assessment, and quantity calculations. 8 The location of the resource is substantiated by numerous test pits which were excavated on the site to explore the subsurface conditions. Fourteen separate test pits and excavation depths are documented in the Century West reports. The subsurface investigation was completed in 2 separate steps. The first investigation (February 5, 1988 report) explored the subsurface conditions in the areas identified as Terraces No. 2, No. 3A, and No. 3B, consisting of approximately 36 acres. The 14 test pits were excavated to depths of 5.0 to 13.5 feet below the ground surface. The total thickness of the aggregate resource was not determined in each test pit because of the limited reach of the backhoe. The Board accepts Century West's determination that the estimates of quantity are conservative and that more aggregate may be available than indicated by the estimates. The Board finds that Century West's analysis was a comprehensive review of the subsurface conditions of Terraces No. 2, 3A and 3B. The Board finds that beneath an overburden of silty sand ranging from 6 inches to 4 feet at Terrace No. 2, (average 1.3 feet) and an overburden thickness on Terraces 3A and 3B between 6 inches and 7 feet (average 2.7 feet), that gravel aggregate is the primary unit throughout the test pit depth. The Board finds that the gravel thickness is about 10 feet on Terrace No. 2, about 6.3 feet or greater on Terrace No. 3A, and about 4 feet on Terrace No. 3B. 9 The Board accepts Century West's conclusion that the gravel deposits in Terraces No. 2, 3A and 3B are a good source of aggregate and that Terrace No. 2 contains an estimated 316,000 cubic yards, Terrace No. 3A contains an estimated 133,000 cubic yards and Terrace No. 3B contains 32,000 cubic yards. 4 3 10 The second portion of the subsurface evaluation of the aggregate resource at Site No. 368 was conducted by Century West on Terrace No. 4, a terrace located to the south of Terrace No. 2 on the west side of the river, the same elevation and distance from the river with the same depositional environment of Terrace No. 2 (April 5, 1988, report). The Board accepts the conclusion of Century West that the aggregate at Terrace No. 4 is similar in size, distribution, composition and texture as Terrace No. 2. Two separate test pits were excavated in Terrace No. 4. The test pits were approximately 10 feet in depth and the aggregate was materially consistent to the bottom of the pits. At the time of Century West's field work, the test pits were partially filled, but some of the gravel remained exposed. Based on the calculation of the area comprised by Terrace No. 4, Century West estimated an average overburden thickness of 1.3 feet and an average thickness of the gravel strata of 9.8 feet. The Board accepts Century West's estimated quantity of aggregate at Terrace No. 4 of 87,000 cubic yards. 11 The Board recognizes that the county's consulting geologist, Mr. Robert J. Deacon, retained by the county to review specific aggregate sites, concluded that Site No. 368 contained 632,413 cubic yards, a greater quantity of aggregate than that estimated by Century West. The Deacon calculation was made by determining from a photograph the surface area of the mining site by planimeter survey methods using an average thickness of the aggregate deposits documented by the Century West test pits on the site. Because the Board finds that Century West's estimates of quantity are based on a site-specific evaluation of test pits conducted in the areas to be mined, the Board believes that that evidence is the best evidence of the aggregate resource. The Board accepts the Hearings Officer's determination, albeit conservative, that Site No. 368 contains 570,000 cubic yards of aggregate material. 12 The Board recognizes that letters were submitted by Mr. H.G. Schlicker & Associates (Schlicker) which address the quantity of aggregate resource at Site No. 368. The Schlicker reports are not premised on a subsurface on-site evaluation. On the basis of his review of the Century West Reports and the Department of Geology Report of On -Site Inspection, I.D. No. 09-0146, Mr. Schlicker estimated an aggregate quantity of 346,296 cubic yards. The Schlicker estimate is lower than that of Century West and Deacon and was arrived at by reducing the area to be mined due to his judgment that (1) certain areas contained too little aggregate to be economically mined; ( 2 ) certain areas had too much overburden compared to the underlying aggregate to be economically mined; and (c) certain areas were not included in the DOGAMI permit area. 13 The Board finds that for establishing its aggregate inventory, and in determining the quantity of the resource at an aggregate resource location, the location and quantity of the resource within the actual resource area should be calculated, and 5 N<�►.., 10'i - 1726 that the location and quantity of aggregate resource should not be premised on whether a DOGAMI permit covers a portion or any of a resource site. For inventory purposes, the quantity of resource is determined by the boundaries of the actual resource deposit, as opposed to estimating the resource, based on a "permit" area. Pursuant to Goal 5, the determination of the County's inventory is based on location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource. Possible environmental or economic considerations are more properly a part of the ESEE analysis. Furthermore, DOGAMI permit conditions can be changed, as is indicated by the addition of Terrace 3B of Site No. 368 to the DOGAMI permit for Site No. 368. The assertion that areas cannot be economically mined substitutes Mr. Schlicker's judgment for that of the owner/operator. In addition, the Board finds that overburden from the mining operation can be used for reclamation of the site. 14 With respect to the quality of the aggregate at Site No. 368, the Board accepts the expert report of Century West which documented the results of durability and soundness tests on the resource at Site No. 368 (June 3, 1988 report). The test results of the sample aggregate from the test pit samples from the site document that the aggregate quality at Site No. 368 exceeds the basic commercial requirements for abrasion, degradation and soundness, which have been established by the Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Division (ODOT), as adopted by this Board in Ordinance No. 90-025. 15 In determining the quality of the resource at Site No. 368 relative to other aggregate resource sites in the county, the Board incorporates its finding regarding the standards of relative aggregate quality as set forth in Ordinance No. 90-025, Findings No. 24 and 27. Those findings establish the categories of the aggregate resource quality under ODOT standards and defines the quality categories established by the County in determining relative quality significance of aggregate resource sites in the inventory. Based on the testing of the aggregate resource at Site No. 368, as referenced in finding 4.14, the Board finds that the aggregate resource at Site No. 368 is "excellent," meaning "of superior grade." In terms of the relative significance of Site No. 368 with respect to quantity, the Board incorporates its finding No. 25 from Ordinance 90-025. In addition, the Board finds that the relative significance of Site No. 368's quantity is enhanced by its close proximity to the major commercial market. 16 The Board finds that the aggregate demand in the County is projected at 2 million cubic yards per year. (Ordinance No. 90-028, incorporated herein). For the planning period of 20 years, the available aggregate inventory resulting from this inventory process is approximately 45 million cubic yards. Only approximately 6.2 million cubic yards of that inventory is located within 10 to 15 miles of the Bend urban area, the major market for the aggregate product. Of that, only approximately 1.3 million cubic yards, including Site No. 368, is of excellent quality (See, 6 if.).1 - ItZI Exhibit G and H of Ordinance 90-025). The Board finds that Site No. 368 is a significant quantity of superior grade aggregate and that its relative significance for quantity is enhanced by its close proximity to the major commercial market. 17 Based on the location, quality and quantity of the aggregate resource at Site No. 368, the Board finds that Site No. 368 is the 15th most significant site in the county's overall aggregate inventory. (Exhibit H, Ordinance No. 90-025). 5. Site Conditions 1 Site No. 368 is owned by CLR, Inc., an affiliate of Bend Aggregate & Paving Co. The property consists of approximately 200 aces. It is zoned Surface Mining Reserve ( SMR) and has been so zoned since 1979. The State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) has issued a surface mining permit for Site No. 368. The site is adjacent to the Deschutes River, east of Cline Falls Road, approximately 3 miles north of Tumalo and 7 miles from Bend. It is 3 miles from Bend Aggregate & Paving's processing plant in Tumalo. 2 Site No. 368 is a rural site, adjacent to the Deschutes River. It include riparian habitat immediately adjacent to the river, cultivated pastures on the lower benches, and juniper woodlands on the steeper slopes and upper benches on both sides of the river. Most of the site is currently fenced pasture lands. The remaining area is vegetated with scattered junipers, sage brush and various grasses. The elevation of the pasture lands range from 10 to 20 feet above the river. The average elevation of the upper terraces is approximately 40 feet. The river banks are low, flat, stable and well vegetated. The pasture land is sprinkle irrigated. Irrigation water is drawn directly from the river with a Swalley Irrigation District water right. 3 The areas of Site No. 368 proposed for surface mining under the site's mining operational plan can be divided into three distinct areas. Terrace No. 2 Terrace No. 2 is a 35 -acre segment of the property located on the east side of the river. It is mainly pasture grass; there are no trees on this part of the property. Terrace No. 2 is bordered by the Deschutes River on the west and by the sloping upper terraces (Terraces No. 3A and 3B) on the east. The northern boundary of Terrace No. 2 is the Twin Bridges Road. Extensive native vegetation screens the Deschutes River from the proposed mining area. The riparian zone includes willows, alders, junipers, etc. The surface mining plan 7 ' ►;�W 101 1!2'8 provides for the maintenance and preservation of the riparian zone vegetation and a minimum river setback of 100 feet. Terrace No. 4 Terrace No. 4 is a 5 -acre parcel located to the south of Terrace No. 2. It is on the west side of the river. Like Terrace No. 2, Terrace No. 4 is mainly pasture land, vegetated with uncultivated grass. Terraces No. 3A and 3B Terraces No. 3A and 3B consist of 15 acres. These terraces, found in the northeast part of the property, are at a higher elevation than the pasture land terraces. These upper terraces on the east side are vegetated with scattered juniper and pine, rabbit brush and sage brush. The remaining areas of the site, consisting of 145 acres, will remain undisturbed. The subsurface of the property is characterized by top soil and silty sand which ranges in depth from 1.3 to 2.7 feet. Below this is a deposit of aggregate material (sand, gravel, and cobble) of 4 to 10 feet in depth, underlying the aggregate deposit is a lower boundary stratum of ash and pumice or bedrock. 6. Vicinity Conditions 1 The general vicinity of the site is bounded by Cline Falls Road in the west and natural areas along the eastern border. It is generally a rural agricultural area although there are some residential acreages in the vicinity. The Deschutes River bisects the property. To the north are residentially developed properties. On the west side of the river, the property climbs up steeply from the river to a plateau. There are few residential properties located on the rimrock above the river. The area on the east side of the river is just slightly higher in elevation than the river and remains generally in its natural state. 2 There is an abandoned cabin, a shed, and corrals near the southern portion of the property. An irrigation water access traverses the property along the river. Irrigation pumps are located along the west side of the river near the center of the westerly plateau. At the north end of the property is the Twin Bridges Road which crosses the Deschutes River. Another bridge crossing the river is located near the southern end of the eastern plateau. The bridge has been relocated approximately 50 feet to the north, removing in the old bridge. An existing road enters the site from the north and west. The site is fenced. The property is otherwise undeveloped. 8 7. Mininq and Reclamation Plan 1 The Board finds that for Site No. 368, the owner/operator has submitted a surface mining operational and reclamation plan. The Board also finds that certain permits and agreements, which are more fully described in Section 9 below, have been entered into by the owner/operator or issued by state and federal agencies, which condition the operational and reclamation plan. The Board accepts the site's mining operation plan, including material extraction, removal and reclamation procedures as conditioned by the permits and agreements for purposes of analyzing impacts and ESEE consequences. 2 The mining operation consists of excavation, removal and reclamation. No on-site processing, crushing, or screening of the aggregate material is proposed at Site No. 368. Of the total site area of 200 acres, a total of approximately 55 acres will be mined, with the remaining 145 acres left in their natural condition. The areas proposed to be mined under the plan include Terraces 2, 3A, 3B and 4. Approximately 5 to 6 acres will be mined each year which will yield annually approximately 100,000 cubic yards of usable aggregate. At any one time, only 10 percent of the total mine site area will be subject to surface mining. Access to the site will be from the existing access road at the southwest corner of the property from Cline Falls Road. Trucks associated with the surface mining activity will not use Twin Bridges Road, the road used by area residents. 3 The method of excavation starts with the removal of the topsoil. A dragline will be placed on the site to remove the topsoil in approximately 20 foot -wide strips. After the topsoil is removed and deposited on the floor of the pit, the sand and gravel is loaded into trucks for transportation off site by the dragline. Water spraying will be provided to curtail any fugitive dust resulting from the excavation and transport processes. The drag line operation will continue across the site to remove topsoil and to expose the aggregate material. As the excavation operation proceeds across the site, topsoil is left on the floor of the excavated area. Fugitive dust will be naturally curtailed by the moisture in the material and further controlled by watering. The loaded trucks will then travel on the on-site gravel road to the access road for transport for processing off-site. The mining operation will include one drag line excavator, a front end loader, and three to four trucks for transport of the aggregate off-site. A water truck, available at all times, will sprinkle the hauling road to eliminate dust. The equipment used to redistribute the topsoil, includes a bulldozer and grader. The redistribution of the topsoil will be coordinated with the reclamation of the area as the excavation progresses on the site. 4 A setback of 25 feet will be maintained from all surface mining operations to the property lines. A setback of 100 feet 9 ¢:�> �(? 11J0 will be maintained from the Deschutes River. All vegetation located in the riparian zone along the river will be maintained. 5 Access to the mining area will be from the existing access from Cline Falls Road at the southerly end of the property. This will be the route used by employees and trucks removing material from the site. The existing Twin Bridges Road that provides access to residences to the north and east of the site will not be used by traffic associated with the surface mining operation. 6 Approximately 100,000 cubic yards of aggregate products will be removed from the site annually. Assuming 100,000 cubic yards is removed during an average of 200 working days per year, an average of 500 cubic yards per day, or 33.3 - 15 cubic yard loads per day, or 6.6 trucks per hour is the estimated traffic impact. 7 Reclamation will occur annually as each five -acre area is depleted. When the aggregate material is removed, the topsoil will be redistributed across the excavated area with a bulldozer and grader. The area will then be seeded with grasses for a pasture environment. The reclamation work will proceed concurrently with mining. After reclamation is completed, the mine area will be a pasture slightly lower than the unmined areas at its perimeter, with boundary slopes not exceeding 3:1. 8. Conflicts Analysis 1 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-005, the Board has identified conflicts with the inventoried aggregate resource at Site No. 368. The conflicting uses, i.e., those uses which, if allowed, could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource site, have been identified primarily by examining both the existing uses and the uses allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the County for the site and the impact area. In addition, conflicting resource uses have been identified by a review of the other inventoried Goal 5 resources in the County's Comprehensive Plan for the site and the impact area. 2 The Board finds that the conflicting uses consist of 1) resource conflicts, i.e., other Goal 5 inventoried resources on the site and the impact area (the "resource conflicts"), and 2) uses which exist or are allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the County for the site and the impact area (the "land use conflicts"). Resource Conflicts 3 The County's Comprehensive Plan inventories "open space" and "areas of special concern" in Table 1, page 108 of its Plan. Neither the area encompassing Site No. 368, nor the Deschutes River is inventoried as "open space" or as an "area of special concern"; however, the Plan recognizes the general desirability of .rte 10 maintaining areas in their natural state, including areas designated for future aggregate extraction. Maintaining the countryside in its natural state, including agricultural lands, pasture, and forested areas is recognized in the County's Plan as an important component of open -space planning. 4 The Board recognizes that open space areas include a broad range of areas left in their natural state, and, as noted in the County's Comprehensive Plan at page 103, can include mineral and aggregate sites as left in their natural state prior to productive mining. The Plan recognizes that, during mining operations, portions of the mining site may not normally be available as open space, but that such sites will be valuable as open space following mining reclamation. 5 As a part of its comprehensive planning process, the County undertook a study of the Deschutes River corridor and adopted the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study ("River Study") as a part of its Comprehensive Plan. For this portion of the Deschutes River (approximately River Mile 155), the River Study generally identifies open space as an identified Goal 5 resource. The River Study Staff Report states that conservation of open space is important in this stretch of the river because it (1) enhances recreational opportunities; (2) enhances land needed for agricultural purposes; (3) is an interim use for those areas identified as having non-renewable aggregate resources; and (4) helps preserve historic sites. The Board finds that open space is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. 6 The Board finds that Site No. 368 is not inventoried by the County's Comprehensive Plan as an inventoried fish habitat or wildlife area and habitat. It is not located in the County's inventory of Big Game Sensitive Areas or as an inventoried Wildlife Habitat Sensitive Area. The Board finds that the County Plan's inventory of Wildlife Habitat includes "Riparian Zone" as an inventoried resource including the area along the Deschutes River. Thus, the Board finds that the riparian zone is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. The Board further finds that the Deschutes River is inventoried by the County's Plan as a fish habitat and wildlife area and habitat area. Thus, the Board finds that the fish and wildlife resource is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. 7 The Board finds that the Deschutes River is a recognized waterway in the County. While the County does not have an inventory of areas constituting "waterways, wetlands, watersheds and groundwater resources as categorized under Goal 5, the County Plan identifies the Deschutes River Basin as a major watershed in the County. As a result, the Deschutes River, as an identified water area, is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. The Board finds that no significant Goal 5 groundwater resources exist at Site No. 368, and that the site is not so I , 01 1 -13 2 inventoried, so there is no groundwater resource conflict with the inventoried aggregate resource. 8 The Board finds that Site No. 368 is not an inventoried area designated as an "outstanding scenic view or site" under the County Plan's inventory of "areas of special concern" wherein the County inventories its areas of special importance, outstanding, or unique scenic resources. However, the Board finds that the River Study includes river corridors that are included in a state scenic water inventory as an outstanding view or site, so the resource of outstanding scenic view or site is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. 9 The Board finds that Site No. 368 is not the location of any inventoried historic area, site, structure or object or cultural area under the County's Plan so that the resources of historic and cultural areas are not a resource conflict to the aggregate resource. The Board finds that the River Study Staff Report lists inventoried historical or historic areas along this portion of the Deschutes River Corridor, but that no such inventoried areas are located at Site No. 368. While the Deschutes River corridor was a major transportation corridor for early native Americans travelling between The Dalles and Klamath Falls, Site No. 368 is not a location of any inventoried cultural or historic areas or sites. 10 The Board finds that the segment of the Deschutes River adjacent to Site No. 368 is a part of the State Scenic Waterway, an identified Goal 5 resource. Thus, the Board finds that the resource of state scenic waterway is a resource conflict to the inventoried aggregate resource. Conflicting Land Uses 11 The Board finds that the potential for conflicting land uses exist with the inventoried aggregate resource site. The conflicting land uses have been identified primarily by examining the uses allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the county on the site and in the impact area. The Board finds that the zoning districts of Multiple Use Agricultural ("MUA"), Surface Mining ("SM"), Surface Mining Reserve ("SMR"), Rural Service Residential -5 ("RSR -5"), Conventional Housing Combining ("CH"), Floodplain ("FP") and Exclusive Farm Use -20 ("EFU-2011) are the broad zoning districts established by the County within the impact area of Site No. 368 which allow land uses which may conflict with the inventoried aggregate resource. The Board incorporates by reference the uses allowed outright and conditionally in those zoning districts as potential conflicting land uses with the inventoried resource site. (Ordinance No. PL -15, Sections 4.100, 4.110, 4.060, 4.150, 4.210, 4.200 and 4.040.) 12 12 The Board accepts the staff report's identification of the existing rural residential uses and housing uses as existing conflicting land uses in the impact area of Site No. 368. 9. Other Permits/Agreements 1 The Board finds that for Site No. 368 other state and federal agencies have issued permits for the surface mining operation and agreements have been executed between the owner/operator and various parties which are relevant to the inventoried aggregate resource. 2 Department of Transportation. Parks and Recreation Department. The Parks and Recreation Department (Parks) has approved an application by the owner/operator of Site No. 368 for its proposed surface mining operation within the state scenic waterway. In concluding that the project does not substantially impair the natural beauty of the scenic waterway, Parks considered the following factors in reaching its conclusion: 1. No mining activity has been conducted on the site prior to notification or since the Scenic Waterway Act went into effect in December of 1988. The division received adequate notice of intent to change land use on January 20, 1989. 2. In the past and prior to Scenic Waterway designation, the site had been cleared of sagebrush and juniper and used for pasture. It is a relatively level alluvial plain above the river. The excavation sites are situated on the east side of the river (34.5 acres) and the west side (5.5 acres). 3. There is healthy riparian vegetation of willows and other native plants along the riverfront that would provide some screening of the project from view from the river. 4. The site is surrounded in the background by high rimrock to the west with single family residences perched overlooking the site. A county road and bridge cross the river and run adjacent to the property on the north end. To the east, the ground rises quickly and is dotted with juniper. Just to the north on the opposite side of the road from the project is a ranch, pasture and single family residences situated in a planned community 13 development -- Deschutes River Ranch. To the south the river canyon narrows to rimrock with residences on the upper plateaus. Because of the amount of development already present in the area, it is likely that this portion of the river would be classified as a Recreational or Scenic River Area when the current management plan is amended to cover the newly designated areas. See OAR 736-40-040. 5. The project will consist of successive 5 -acre excavations with top soil being stockpiled nearby. Each excavated area would reach a depth of ten feet at maximum and not penetrate the water table. Reclamation of each 5 -acre tract is planned before a new parcel is excavated. It is expected the project will be complete within five to six years at which time full reclamation will also be completed. There will be no large "open pits" associated with the project. When the project is entirely complete the site will have been lowered about eight feet, leveled, and reseeded with pasture grass and irrigated. The land will be put back to the same use as existed prior to the gravel extraction operation. Agreements that have been reached between [the owner/operator] and Deschutes County regarding the final disposition and use of this property are intended to insure its long term use as open space. 6. There is an abandoned bridge which would be replaced and used for gravel trucks to cross the river to get to the processing plant at Tumalo. The old bridge and its abutments will be removed, a new bridge put in place at the same site. All instream work for the new bridge will require approval from the Division of State Lands and the State Land Board. [The owner/operator] agreed to add additional riparian plantings of willow and red osier dogwood to the bridge abutments and to grade and reseed all bare soil resulting from construction of the bridge. In addition, the bridge is to be high enough above the surface of the water to allow boat passage beneath. 14 3 The bridge is a low profile concrete structure that will not add any additional instream structures then what exists currently. Visual impacts will be minimal since no new elements are being added to the scene. Deschutes County has previously approved the bridge replacement project. 7. The character of the river in this area is typical of pool, non -rapid sections of the Deschutes. The current is swift and there is limited public access or boating opportunities along this stretch of river. 8. There will be no gravel processing (washing, screening, or crushing) activities conducted on the site. All this work will be done at Bend Aggregate's existing plant at Tumalo. Only a dragline, bulldozer and water truck will be on the excavation site. No addition structures are planned. Trucks will remove the excavation material from the site via an access road through the property and to the county road leading to Tumalo. The road that currently exists will be improved slightly with rock to stabilize it. The road will be watered periodically during the dry months to control dust. No more than three to four trucks are expected to be working in the area at any one time. The project is to operate under restricted hours and days of operation. No weekend or holiday work is expected and hours of operation are limited to daylight hours. 9. The excavation areas are set back from 100 to 275 feet away from the river. In some areas the excavation will be screened from view from the river by topography. [The owner/operator has] agreed to plant additional riparian vegetation of willows and red osier dogwood to further screen the project from view from the river as well as to improve the riparian habitat conditions. In addition, [the owner/operator has] agreed to plant additional trees along the north boundary of the property adjacent to the county road in order to 15 - 1136 collect dust, provide noise barrier, and further screen the operation from view from the road. 10. We note that there is an archeological site near a planned extraction area on the southeast edge of the site at the toe of the slope. This area will not be disturbed. 11. It is apparent from [the] plan and our visits to the site that with the project set backs and since no crushing, washing, or processing of aggregate will be done on site that debris, silt, chemicals or other materials will not be discharged into or allowed to reach the river. In addition, we expect [the owner/operator] to comply with all appropriate Department of Environmental Quality regulations concerning the operation of this type and have so conditioned our concurrence. 12. Adjacent segments of the upper Deschutes River downstream of Twin Bridges have been designated as Scenic Waterway since 1987. Our concurrence with [the] project is consistent with the management plan currently in force on those portions of the upper Deschutes. 13. In order to ensure compatibility with other local, state or federal agencies we have conditioned our concurrence on [the] receipt of approval from other appropriate regulatory agencies. In the event [the] project plan changes in scope or scale, we must be notified and a new notification may be required. In addition, the Parks placed the following conditions on its approval: 1. All Deschutes County requirements shall be satisfied. 2. The minimum setback from the river for all operations will be 100 feet. In addition, all setbacks exceeding 100 feet as depicted in the Notification of Intent shall be maintained. 3. Additional vegetation shall be planted on the northwest corner of the site along 3 .A 16 * 4,'i k 0 U1 the river and along Twin Bridges Road in the current pasture area. An approved planting plan for these areas is required. Please note the sample plan. 4. All components of the existing bridge including those in the river must be removed from the site. 5. Vegetative screening shall be planted around both ends of the new bridge. An approved planting plan for these areas is required. Please note sample plan. 6. All existing vegetation between the project and the river must be maintained. Please notify Region 4 Parks Office prior to removing any trees or brush that screen the project from the view of the river. 7. The pasture grass needed for reclamation must be maintained for at least one year after the project is completed. Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) DOGAMI has issued a surface mining and reclamation permit for Site No. 368. In addition, DOGAMI, together with representatives of other associations, including the National Audubon Society conducted a site review of Site No. 368. The Board accepts the Report of the On -Site Inspection (DOGAMI report). The DOGAMI permit was approved for Site No. 368 with five conditions imposed. They are: 1. A minimum property line setback of 25 feet from the excavation shall be maintained. 2. Mining shall be initiated at the south end of the property and progress to the north to minimize visual impact. 3. The rimrock area vegetated with ponderosa pine between the upper and lower terraces to be mined on the east side of the river shall remain intact. 4. Weed control shall be maintained during reclamation. 17 5. If irrigation is not used to establish the reclamation seeding, ladak alfalfa should be substituted for nomad alfalfa because it is drought tolerant. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved the owner/operator's application to construct a new bridge at the southwestern end of the property, replacing an old bridge, so that truck traffic associated with the mining operation can enter and exit the site on the existing gravel road which accesses Cline Falls Road. By utilizing this access to the site, the trucks associated with the mining operation are not travelling on area roads utilized by residents. The Deschutes County Planning Department by and through its Hearings Officer issued a conditional use permit to authorize construction of the bridge in accordance with the County's land use approval process. The Division of State Lands also issued a permit authorizing construction of the bridge. 3 The Board finds that the surface mining operation at Site No. 368 is the subject of two separate agreements entered into by the owner/operator. These agreements were submitted to the Board at the hearing on this site. Conservation Agreement. In this agreement by and between the owner/operator and The Coalition for the Deschutes, Save the Canyon Committee, Trout Unlimited and Central Oregon Flycasters (Conservationists), the owner/operator and the Conservationists reached agreement on the surface mining use of the property. The owner/operator agreed to mine only the lower pasture lands, not the upper terraces, and not that portion of the lower terrace within 100 feet of the mean high water of the river, unless approved by the county. Further, when the aggregate resource is depleted from the property, the owner/operator has agreed to donate a perpetual conservation easement. The conservation easement will allow for public foot access for recreational purposes within 100 feet of the mean high water line of the river. Further, the entire property will be maintained only for agricultural or recreational purposes. No development of structures, residences, etc., will be allowed. Deschutes River Ranch Agreement. In an agreement between the Deschutes River Ranch, a development north of Site No. 368 and the owner/operator, the surface mining use of the property was agreed to by the parties. The owner/operator agreed to limit its surface mining activities generally to those areas not higher than 20 feet above the high water line of the Deschutes except for the pasture area adjoining both Swalley Road and Twin Bridges Road and, not to mine that area until the lower pasture lands have been mined and reclaimed with pasture grasses. The riparian zone shall be maintained. Specific terms were reached on the excavation and 18 ongoing reclamation and the agreement provides that upon completion of the mining activities, the area be returned to a use compatible with the surrounding properties. 4 The Board finds that these permits and agreements entered into the record for Site No. 368 modify the operational plan submitted by the owner/operator by restricting the mining operation from that originally proposed and by limiting the allowed future uses of the site. As a result, the ESEE analysis incorporates the terms and conditions of these permits and agreements. 10. ESEE Analysis Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource Over Resource Conflicts 1 This section of the findings addresses the ESEE consequences on the resource conflicts from protecting the aggregate resource. Section 11 addresses the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource from protecting the resource conflicts. Sections 12 and 13 analyze the ESEE consequences of the conflicts between land uses and the aggregate resource. Both the impacts on the aggregate resource and on the resource conflicts uses are considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. 2 Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences to the resource conflicts of open space, riparian area, fish habitat, waterway or area and the approved scenic waterway and outstanding views. To the extent that adverse environmental consequences result, the Board finds that the impacts on these resources can be minimized by the placement of operational restrictions on the protection of the aggregate resource so that such impacts are insignificant. 10.2.1 With respect to the open space resource, the Board finds that one of the purposes of conserving open space is to allow for an interim use for those areas identified as having non-renewable aggregate resources. The protection of this area for aggregate resource is consistent with the reasons articulated in the County's Comprehensive Plan regarding the conservation of open space. 10.2.2 The Board further finds that open space along the Deschutes River has been considered important in the River Study because it enhances recreational opportunities. The Board finds that only two (2) state parks exist in the vicinity of Site No. 368, and each park is in excess of five ( 5 ) miles from the site. Site No. 368 and its surrounding areas are privately owned, and public recreational access to the river is presently limited except at the bridges. The Board finds that the recreational opportunities offered by the river will not be significantly impacted by protecting the aggregate resource. No mining 19 activities will occur in the riparian zone along the river which extends along 80-90 percent of the river frontage, to a depth inland of 40 feet. A setback of 100 feet from the river is incorporated in the operational plan. The riparian zone substantially buffers and screens the site from any recreational users of the river along this site. In addition, the mining activities will occur at terraces 10-40 feet above the river, so that visual effects of the operation will be minimized. Thus, the Board finds that, to the extent that recreational enhancement is a value of the open space resource, the Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource will not significantly impact the open space resource. In fact, the Board finds that the recreational use along this stretch of the river will be enhanced in the long term by the donation of the conservation easement which will afford public access for hiking and fishing and the perpetual dedication of the property as open space agricultural or pasture lands. The conservation easement will prohibit the proliferation of rural residential development or other similar uses which generally diminishes the value of the open space resource by altering its natural state. Following reclamation to pasture lands, the area will be returned to its productive capacity as open space with increased recreational opportunities. 10.2.3 The second purpose articulated in the River Study Staff Report regarding the importance of conserving open space is that it enhances land need for agricultural purposes. The Board finds that Site No. 368 is primarily pasture land and is not cultivated for agricultural purposes. The surface mining activity as proposed will not significantly reduce agricultural lands within this stretch of the Deschutes River corridor. The activity, limited to only five (5) acres annually, with concurrent reclamation will not significantly reduce the area available for agricultural purposes. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report that agricultural use of the land may be enhanced following reclamation because the removal of the gravel and subsequent increase in water holding capacity of the soil may improve the pasture for agricultural purposes upon completion of the mining. Because the future topography of the site along the lower terraces will be relatively level terraces approximately 9 to 12 feet lower than at present, the area can be returned to productive agricultural pasture lands as open space. The Board finds that the stated purpose of conserving open space to enhance agricultural use is satisfied. 10.2.4 No inventoried historical sites or areas exist at Site No. 368, so the last articulated reason for conserving open space in the River Study Staff Report, preserving historic sites, is not applicable to this location. 10.2.5 The Board recognizes that the impacts of dust, noise and changes in the landscape associated with the extraction of the aggregate resource will negatively affect the visual appearance for a short term because the area is not left in its 20 «: 1 141 natural state. The loss of visual appeal diminishes the area's productive use as open space; however, the Board finds that the impacts on the open space resource can be substantially mitigated so that the impact on the open space resource is not significant. Site No. 368 is substantially screened by the riparian vegetation from any recreational users of the river, so the visual impact of the vegetation removal and the associated changes to the natural state will be limited for those users of the river. Further, the impacts to the natural state will be short-term. Surface mining is a transitional use, and the area can be reclaimed for open space resource use. By limiting the active mining area to 5 acres at any one time, the dust and noise associated with the surface mining activity that could adversely impact the open space resource will be minimized. Phasing will also minimize the amount of vegetation removal and landscape changes which impact the open space resource. Further, ongoing concurrent reclamation, irrigation, and planting will allow the depleted portions of the site to return to its productive capacity of open space in an accelerated fashion. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report and DOGAMI permit condition that by mining of the area from south to north, the excavation will be screened by topography from the Twin Bridges Road. The Board finds that the fugitive dust emissions produced as a result of the surface mining activities including the excavation and removal of the resource and the transportation of the resource from the site can have a negative impact on the visual values of the open space resource, if not controlled as a part of the surface mining activity. With respect to Site No. 368, the Board finds that the proposed surface mining plan incorporates operational measures to minimize dust emissions. The plan provides for the transportation of the material on an existing access road at the southwest corner of the property onto Cline Falls Road, so the trucks servicing the mining activity will not use the road used by area residents. The operational plan also incorporates the use of watering during each stage of the mining operating to minimize the generation of dust during operations. No processing or crushing of the aggregate is proposed at Site No. 368. The Board finds that an air quality report has been submitted from CH2M Hill which analyzed the impact of the mining operations on the air quality of the area. The Board accepts CH2M Hill's report that the sources with the most potential for particulate emissions include truck loading, trucks travelling on the on-site gravel road in dry weather, mud and soil trackout onto Cline Falls Road and road dust on Cline Falls Road. The Board further accepts CH2M Hill's report that the dust impacts will be periodic and can be minimized with implementation of responsive control measures as a part of the site's proposed operational plan including keeping truck speeds to less than 10 mph while on the 21 i I. ("'? 11 �S i 01 -, 1142 gravel roads, applying water or dust suppressants to the on-site gravel roads to prevent visible dust emissions, paving the last 200 feet of the access road at the intersection of Cline Falls Road, flushing the paved portions of Cline Falls Road and the access road to remove dust buildup and use of water sprays to prevent dust from the truck loading operation. With the implementation of control measures as a part of the site's proposed operational plan, the Board accepts CHZM Hill's conclusion that the surface mining operation should not have a significant impact on open space resource in terms of air quality. The Board further finds that the noise associated with surface mining operation can affect the open space resource. The Board accepts CHZM Hill's report that with the utilization of a muffler device on the exhaust of the crane, the noise levels of the operation meet the applicable DEQ criteria and that the employment of other noise mitigation measures such as a berm can be used, if necessary, to meet the DEQ noise level requirements. 10.2.6 With respect to the resource conflicts of riparian area, the Board finds that no adverse environmental consequences will result from the protection of the aggregate resource. The riparian area along the river consists of vegetation approximately 40 feet in depth from the bank along 80 to 90 percent of the area's frontage. The Board finds that no mining will occur within 100 feet of the river so the vegetative communities of the riparian area resource will remain intact. There will be no loss of woody matter that serves as a habitat for wildlife and bank stabilization. Grading of the site will occur so that surface water is drained into the site, not toward the riparian area so that the riparian area will not be affected by sediment from the operation. The riparian area will continue to serve its present purpose of filtering surface water drainage to the river. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report and the report of CHZM Hill that the setbacks from the river as proposed are conservative and provide protection to the riparian area and for river bank protection. The Board finds that the riparian zone will be enhanced by the planting of additional screening along the river bank as conditioned by the approval of DOGAMI and Parks which will result in a positive environmental consequence. 10.2.7 With respect to the fish habitat resource, the Board finds that no adverse environmental consequences to the fish habitat resource will occur by protecting the aggregate resource. The Board accepts the conclusions of ODFW that the fish habitat and the river will be adequately protected during and after mining. The Board further believes that the CHZM Hill reports, both in its analysis of the ground and surface water quality impacts and its evaluation of the wildlife resource that no adverse effects on the water quality or its beneficial uses will result from the proposed surface mining operation. 22 10.2.8 The proposed surface mining plan incorporates environmental measures which minimize the impacts of dust and vegetation removal/topographical changes which could negatively impact the fish habitat and its water quality. The implementation of dust control measures as described in Section 10.2.5, incorporated herein, will reduce fugitive emissions that could increase river turbidity which could negatively affect the fish resource. Phasing of the active mining to 5 acres per year with ongoing reclamation will further reduce the potential for erosion. Preservation of the riparian area and control of surface water drainage will prevent discharges into the river which would result in negative environmental consequences to the fish habitat. 10.2.9 The Board further finds that the fish habitat resource and the Deschutes River Waterway resource will be protected from environmental impacts associated with the surface mining at Site No. 368. The Board accepts the analysis performed by CH2M Hill to evaluate the impacts on surface and groundwater quality at the site which indicated that the principal concerns for groundwater at the site are the interception of the subsurface flow to the Deschutes River and water quality degradation due to the proposed mining and postmining activities. With respect to surface water resources, the principal concerns include the destruction of riparian areas, site erosion into the Deschutes River during typical flow or flood conditions, and the degradation of water quality due to proposed mining and post -mining operations. 10.2.10 The Board finds that the riparian area adjacent to the river along Site No. 368 will be protected from the mining activity. The Board incorporates its findings in Section 10.2.6 wherein it was found that no adverse environmental consequences will result to the riparian area. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report and the comments of ODFW that the setbacks from the riparian area are sufficient to provide bank stability during mining and to ensure that the riparian habitat is maintained. The Board further accepts the report of CH2M Hill that the setbacks will prevent degradation or loss of the riparian area and that the riparian buffer will continue to filter surface runoff from areas adjacent to the river. 10.2.11 With respect to site erosion into the river during typical flow or flood conditions which could negatively impact the fish habitat and waterway resource, the Board finds that the only surface water source at the site is the Deschutes River. No tributaries, springs or seeps exist on the site. At the location of Site no. 368, the river channel is stable, showing no indications of channel movement or significant annual flooding. Bedrock is present under the mine site and extends into the river channel. The river ranges from 75 to 100 feet wide and has an average depth of 1 to 2 feet. The river banks along Site No. 368 23 101 A 1 Y 4 4 have a well-developed riparian zone that is vegetated by willow, cottonwood, cattails, and some sedges. 10.2.12 The Board finds that all excavation faces of the surface mining operation will be sloped so that they drain into the pit and not towards the river. Only that area that is necessary to develop the mine face and stockpile soil - not to exceed 5 acres - will be disturbed at any one time. The setback provisions, protection of the riparian area, the on-site surface water drainage plan, and annual reclamation will protect the river and its fish habitat from the potential of erosion of excavation and reclaimed area soils which could negatively impact the water quality. The Board further finds that a secondary water quality concern involved fugitive dust that could increase turbidity and suspended solid levels in the river. The Board accepts CH2M Hill's report that this potential problem can be mitigated by the dust control measures incorporated into the proposed surface mining operation plan for Site No. 368. 10.2.13 With respect to the concern relating to groundwater for the interception of subsurface flow to the river and water quality degradation due to the proposed mining and post - mining activities, the Board finds that no groundwater was encountered in the test pits at the site to the depth proposed for mining (10 feet below the current surface elevations). Bedrock exists below the mining area and extends into the river channel. The Board finds that the interception of groundwater is not expected during mining operations and accepts CH2M Hill's report which concludes that no adverse effects on groundwater will result from the aggregate mining operation at Site No. 368. The Board further finds that the potential for water quality contamination from routine maintenance and fueling of the surface mining equipment is remote because the mining operation will only involve the on-site maintenance of the drag line. All other vehicles will be serviced at the owner/operator's processing plant in Tumalo. The Board accepts the report of CH2M Hill that the expected on-site servicing of the drag line does not present a substantial risk of an on-site fuel or oil spill which could affect water quality. 10.2.14 The Board accepts the reports of CH2M Hill and DOGAMI as well as the comments of ODFW and concludes that no adverse effects on groundwater or surface water quality or their beneficial uses will result from the aggregate mining operation at Site No. 368, and that following reclamation to its current use (sprinkle irrigated pasture), no long-term surface or groundwater problems will result. 10.2.15 The Board finds that a report from CH2M Hill was submitted which evaluated the major plant communities and 24 wildlife habitats on the site and considered the impacts on those resources which could result from the surface mining operation. The Board finds that the site includes riparian habitat immediately adjacent to the river, cultivated pastures on the lower benches, and juniper woodlands on the steeper slopes and upper benches on both sides of the river. The riparian vegetation consisting of willow, spirea, and cattail is 15 to 20 feet in height and varies in width from 10 to 40 feet. The thickets form a fringe over approximately 80 to 90 percent of the river shoreline. The cultivated pastures occur on the lower benches 10 to 20 feet above the river and contain a mixture of cultivate grass species with some inclusion of rabbitbrush. The upper benches are dominated by sagebrush, bunchgrass and juniper woodlands. The Board finds that Site No. 368 is not a designated significant wildlife area or habitat. It is an area frequented by many species of common birds and mammals. There are no known roosting and/or nesting sites for large raptors. Site No. 368 is not located in the County's designated mule deer winter range. The Boards accepts and believes CH2M Hill's finding that the primary impacts of the mining process would be to the cultivated pastures, resulting in some loss of breeding and foraging habitat for grassland species, but that the potentially impacted species are common and widespread and this habitat supply is not in short supply. The only exception may be the Western Bluebird, a less common species. Any potential impact to that species could be mitigated by providing additional nest boxes around the perimeter of the pastures not currently being mined for aggregate. The Board accepts the staff report's findings and the report of CH2M Hill that the impacts due to habitat destruction would be minor. The mining operation, located only on the pasture terraces will result in a temporary loss of habitat for grassland species, but the potentially impacted species are generally common and widespread in the region and the habitat type is not in short supply. Phasing of the mining operation, limiting mining to a maximum of 5 acres with concurrent reclamation will not result in a significant decrease of the available forage for wildlife. Reclamation and replanting could enhance the wildlife habitat after mining. Further, the Board accepts the finding of CH2M Hill that the noise from the mining operation may depress wildlife activity in the immediate vicinity but that mining activity, limited to daylight hours when the aggregate is actually being extracted and hauled away, would not have an adverse long term impact on wildlife. 10.2.16 With respect to the identified resource conflicts of state scenic waterway and the designation of this stretch of the river as an outstanding scenic site or area the Board finds that the values of the resource conflicts of the 25`; scenic waterway and outstanding scenic view or area are related to the values of the other resource conflicts in that preservation and conservation of the scenic waterway and outstanding scenic areas are significant for the open space values, outdoor recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat values for the present and future benefit to the public. The Board finds that the mining operation at Site No. 368 will not significantly interfere with the resource conflicts of scenic waterway and outstanding scenic view. The Board incorporates the considerations of Parks in their determination that the mining operation will not substantially impair the natural beauty of the scenic waterway (Section 9.2). In addition, the Board incorporates its findings in Sections 10.2.2 - 10.2.16 regarding the impacts on resource conflicts of open space, riparian area, fish and wildlife habitat and waterway. The Board further finds that the scenic values and outstanding views of the river and from the river will not be significantly impacted. The mining operation is located only at terraces 10-40 feet above the level of the river so that visual effects of the operation will be minimized. That area is substantially buffered and screened by the riparian zone for any recreational river users, and is screened by the topographic characteristics of the site from Twin Bridges Road. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report and the condition of its permit approval that if mining occurs from south to north, the excavation will be screened by topography from Twin Bridges Road. DOGAMI found that the lowering of the pastures by mining across them and respreading and reseeding the topsoil immediately after replacement should not appear significantly different than a farming operation. The Board finds that several residences are located north of the site primarily on rimrock areas above the river. The Board finds that the mining of Site No. 368 will have a visual impact on those residences, but that the impacts associated with the surface mining operation will be short-term and that there will be no long-term significant impacts to the outstanding scenic view, the scenic values and ecological resources of the scenic waterway by the mining operation. 3 Social Consequences. The Boards finds that the protection of the aggregate resource would result in both negative and positive social consequences to the resource conflicts. The short-term loss of visual appeal of the area resulting from the impacts of the surface mining operation as described in Sections 10.2 - 10.2.16 herein will be a negative social consequence to the resource conflicts of open space, waterway, scenic waterway and outstanding scenic view. The surface mining operation will temporarily alter the existing natural state of the area, and to the extent that that is a value of those resources to persons enjoying the views and vistas in their natural states, a negative social consequence results. However, the Board finds that both 26 ioi `1147 topographical and vegetative characteristics of the site as well as the site's proposed operational plan provisions serve to significantly reduce the social consequences resulting from the mining activity at Site No. 368. The Board finds that only 55 acres of the approximate 200 -acre site will be mined, and that only one 5 -acre portion will be actively mined at any one time. No processing of the material is proposed. The phasing of the mining operation with concurrent reclamation will limit the disturbance to the site's natural state. The Board finds that the site is substantially buffered and screened along 80-90% of its river frontage by the existing 40 -feet deep riparian vegetation area. The riparian area will be protected from the mining operation and will be enhanced by the additional plantings along the newly constructed bridge. The riparian buffer serves to screen the mining area so that those persons viewing the area from the river will not be adversely affected by the short-term change in the area's natural state. The Board finds that the maintenance of the riparian zone and its enhancement by additional plantings significantly mitigates the negative social consequences on river visitors. In addition, the Board finds that the mining will occur on terraces between 10 and 40 feet above the river, and that as a result much of the mining activity will not be visible to those using the river. The Board further finds that mining in a north to south direction, as conditioned by DOGAMI in its permit approval, will screen the operation from those persons traveling on Twin Bridges Road, so there is no visual impact on the users of Twin Bridges Road. The Board also finds that the impacts of noise and dust which could negatively impact the visual appeal of the resource conflicts can be mitigated as proposed in the operational plan, including fugitive dust emission control and maintenance and noise mufflers, so that no significant negative social consequences result. The Board incorporates its findings in Sections 10.2 - 10.2.16 herein. The Board finds that the outdoor recreational opportunities afforded by the resource conflicts of scenic waterway and open space will not be negatively impacted from protecting the resource. Public access to the area is presently limited; access to the river is limited to the bridges in the area. A positive social consequence can result from the protection of the aggregate resource by the donation of the conservation easement by the owner/operator allowing public access for various outdoor recreational purposes, including hiking and fishing. The conservation easement enhances the recreational opportunities and is a significant positive social consequence of protecting the aggregate resource. 27 1148 Truck traffic associated with the surface mining operation is limited; approximately 6 trucks per hour are the expected traffic impact. The traffic will utilize the newly constructed bridge at the southwestern end of the site, which has been constructed in accordance with federal, state and county permits and safety standards. The Board finds that the traffic associated with the operation is minimal and that the negative social consequences to the resources is limited by the restricted number of trucks associated with the operation, and the use an access road which will not be used by other persons residing in the area. 4 Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy consequences of protecting the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts will be both positive and negative. Energy consumption will be necessary to run the surface mining equipment on site. The Board finds that this expenditure of fuel is necessary at any extraction operation and does not consider it significant. For Site No. 368, no crushing or processing of material is proposed on site, so the energy consumption will be limited to the extraction equipment. Fuel will also be needed to transport the aggregate product to the crusher and to its market destination. Given the location of Site No. 368 in close proximity to the crusher and to the major market area for aggregate, the expenditure of fuel necessary to transport the aggregate to its end use will not be significant relative to sites which are located a greater distance from the major market area. The Board finds that the utilization of aggregate resources near the major market area results in a positive energy consequence when compared to the necessary use of fuel to transport aggregate resources from inventoried sites further away from its market area. Failure to protect aggregate resources in close proximity to the market would result in significant negative energy consequences since additional energy consumption would be necessary to transport the aggregate resources located greater distances than Site No. 368 from the market areas. The protection of the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts may result in negative energy consequence if the public is required to travel greater distances to those view the resources conflicts of open space and scenic waterway and outstanding view or site. The Board finds that public access to the river at Site No. 368 is limited because it is privately owned and no public recreational accesses are located nearby. Access to the river is limited to the bridge accesses. The mining area is screened by the site's topography or vegetative communities for those travelling on Twin Bridges Road. The Board finds that the potential for a negative energy consequence from the public travelling greater distances to view the resource conflicts is insignificant. Further, the Board finds that following '4 28 ' � a 01 1149 reclamation of the site and dedication of a conservation easement to offer public access, the site will be available for public recreational opportunities so that the long-term negative energy consequence is positive. 5 Economic Consequences. The Board finds that positive economic consequences result from protecting the aggregate resource over the resource conflicts. Preserving the aggregate resource adds to the overall county supply which serves to maintain the cost of the resource within the County. Failure to protect an adequate supply of the aggregate resource would result in the negative economic consequence of a higher cost for the resource and higher cost for its use in the development of the County. The Board finds that the aggregate resource at Site No. 368 is of excellent quality and is located in close proximity to the major aggregate market. Only approximately 5.5 million cubic yards of the inventoried sand and gravel inventory is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend urban area. Of that, this site offers 570,000 cubic yards determined to be of superior quality. Protection of the superior aggregate resource in close proximity to the areas of major demand results in a positive economic consequence. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource will result in accelerated deterioration of the roadways which bear the burden of the traffic associated with the surface mining activity. The cost of maintaining these roads is a negative economic consequence of preserving the aggregate resource. Because the aggregate resource is a necessary commodity for the development of the area and transportation of the resource necessarily affects the transportation routes, preserving the aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area will result in positive economic consequences by minimizing the need to maintain roadways distanced further from the market end. The Board finds that the potential for negative economic consequences on the resource conflicts from protecting the aggregate resource relates to the potential of a reduction in the number of tourists to the County resulting from a failure to protect valued resources such as the scenic waterway or open space. The Board finds that the scenic beauty of the river corridor, and the natural state of the open space resource will not be substantially impaired from protecting the aggregate resource and that a significant decrease in tourists in Deschutes County will not occur by protecting the aggregate resource. The Board incorporates its findings herein from Sections 10.2 - 10.2.16. The Board further incorporates the factors considered by Parks in determining that the proposal will not substantially impair the natural beauty of the river herein. The Board believes that the long-term protection of the site from development and the donation of a conservation easement for public access to the river and river -related recreational purposes will enhance the public 29 z °:. access to the site, maintain open space, and will result in a long-term positive economic consequence to the County. 11. ESEE Analysis - Conflicting Resource Uses - Protection of Resource Uses over Aggregate Resource 1 This section of the findings addresses the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource from protecting the resource conflicts. 2 Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. Full protection of the resource conflicts would preclude surface mining. The impacts of dust, noise and human presence, traffic, vegetation removal and changes in topography which are associated with the surface mining activity, and which can result in negative environmental consequences in the absence of mitigation measures, would be eliminated. By not protecting the aggregate resource, negative environmental consequences to the resource conflicts would result by the extension of rural residential development or other conflicting uses in the area. Surface mining is a transitional use and, following reclamation, the area can be returned to resource uses of open space or scenic waterway. Not protecting Site No. 368 for mining could mean that other types of uses conflicting with the resource uses could be introduced which result in long-term negative environmental consequences to the resource conflicts. Unlike surface mining which is a transitional use, the proliferation of conflicting uses to the resource conflicts can be permanent. The Board finds that the donation of a conservation easement which restricts the development of rural residential uses or other structures on Site No. 368 following extraction of the resource results in a significant long-term positive environmental consequence to the resource conflicts. 3 Energv Consequences. Protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would have negative energy consequences. The failure to protect aggregate resources which are located in close proximity to the market area involving diminished haulage distances to the major aggregate market areas would result in increased energy consumption to transport aggregate resources located further from the market area. The Board finds that protecting the resource conflicts may have a positive energy consequence of allowing visitors or tourists to the County to view these resources without expending additional fuel to travel further distances; however, the Board finds that the significance of the energy consequences related to the expenditure of fuel to view such resources is limited for Site No. 368 as described by the Board's findings in Section 10.4. 30 1751 4 Social Consequences. The social consequences of protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would both be positive and negative. If the conflicting resource uses were fully protected, the impacts associated with surface mining activities including dust, noise and human presence, traffic impacts, vegetation removal and soil/topographical changes would be eliminated. Full protection of the conflicting resource uses would preclude surface mining. By eliminating those impacts which, in the absence of mitigation measures, result in negative social consequences to the resource uses by impairing the ability of people to view resources such as open space areas and the scenic waterway, a positive social consequence results. On the other hand, preserving the resource conflicts will have a negative social consequence if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. The deterioration of the road infrastructure, inadequate aggregate to meet the demand for commercial, industrial or residential development for the visitors or residents of the county, or having aggregate resource at an increased cost is a negative social consequence. Further, failure to preserve aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area will increase the overall cost of aggregate from inventories located further from the market area resulting in a negative social consequence. 5 Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of protecting the resource conflicts over the aggregate resource would be negative. The Board finds that the failure to protect a sufficient supply of aggregate for the future growth of the County will result in increased cost for the resource. Increases in aggregate resource costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to be hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by the transportation costs, resulting in a negative economic consequence. The overall County inventory for sand and gravel accounted for in this inventorying process, consists of approximately 45 million cubic yards of available aggregate. Based on an estimated 2 million cubic yard annual aggregate demand, (Ordinance No. 90-028, incorporated herein by this reference), the County's inventoried aggregate sites are sufficient to serve the County for the 20 year planning period. Aggregate is a finite resource and failure to preserve sufficient quantities for future growth is not readily mitigated. 12. ESEE Analysis -- Conflicting Land Uses Protection of Aggregate Resource 1 This section addresses the ESEE consequences on the conflicting land uses from protecting the aggregate resource. 31 Both the impacts on the resource site and on the conflicting land uses are considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. The Board finds that the conflicting land uses consist of the potential conflicting uses identified primarily by examining the uses allowed in the broad zoning districts established by the County on the site and in the impact area. The potential conflicting land uses are identified in Section 8.11. The Board also finds that the conflicting land uses also consist of the existing land uses on the site and in the impact area. The Board accepts the staff report finding that the existing land uses consist of the existing rural residential and other housing uses in the area. The Board finds that rural residential and other housing uses are noise -sensitive uses under the DEQ standards and are dust sensitive uses as defined in Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that a variety of the potential conflicting land uses allowed in the broad zoning districts, including residential, commercial, and farming with livestock are noise and dust sensitive, but that utility uses, land -fill uses, forest operations, farming without livestock and other mining uses are not noise and dust sensitive. 2 Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. In the absence of restrictions on the surface mining activity, the existing identified conflicting land uses would be adversely affected by the impacts of dust, and noise, traffic impacts and changes to the landscape associated with surface mining activities. With respect to the impact of dust, the Board finds that fugitive dust emissions produced as a result of the surface mining activities can have a negative impact on the existing conflicting land uses, if not controlled as a part of the surface mining activity. For Site No. 368, the Board finds that the surface mining plan incorporates operational measures to minimize dust emissions. The Board incorporates it findings in Section 10.2.5 regarding these control measures. The Board finds that an air quality report has been submitted by CH2M Hill which analyzed the impact of the mining operations on the air quality of the area and identified the sources of particulate emissions from the operation. The Board incorporates its findings from Section 10.5. The Board finds that with the implementation of dust control measures as identified in Section 10.2.5, there will be no significant impact on the air quality resource from the fugitive dust emissions of the operation. The Board further finds that the noise associated with the surface mining operation can impact the conflicting land uses. The Board accepts the report from CH2M Hill that the noise levels 32 of the surface mining operation meet the applicable DEQ criteria with the utilization of a muffler device on the exhaust of the crane and that the employment of other noise mitigation measures such as a berm can be used, if necessary, to satisfy the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board accepts the staff report finding and that of the DOGAMI report that the impacts on the existing conflicting land uses will be a short-term visual impact. Given the topography of the area, several residences located on the rimrock areas above the river will be visually impacted by the protection of the aggregate resource. The Board finds the mining operation will have a visual impact on those existing conflicting land uses, but that the impacts will be short-term and their significance can be substantially reduced by the implementation of operational control measures on the operation. Limiting the extraction area to 5 acres, controlling dust emissions and providing for ongoing reclamation will minimize the environmental consequences to the conflicting land uses. The Board accepts the DOGAMI report herein. The Board finds that the truck traffic generated by the surface mining operation will travel along an access road at the southwestern end of the site. The truck traffic generated by the surface mining operation will not pass any existing conflicting land uses, including rural residential uses on the access road to the Cline Falls Road. Further, the Board finds that by phasing the operation, the truck traffic generated by the operation is reduced. The Board finds that the implementation of dust emission controls incorporated as a part of the. operation's proposed plan as described in Section 10.2.5 will minimize the fugitive dust impacts of the truck traffic. The Board accepts CH2M Hill's report that the surface mining operation, including the truck traffic, will not have a significant impact on the air quality resource. The Board incorporates its findings of Section 10.2.5 herein. Further, the Board finds that failure to protect the aggregate resource would preclude the opportunity to enhance the environmental attributes of the area. Reclamation of the mining site has the potential for enhancing the productivity of the agricultural lands. The long-term dedication of the property for resource use - open space, pasture or agricultural purposes and precluding the development of the site will enhance the environmental attributes of the area for the conflicting land uses. 3 Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in both positive and negative economic consequences. The Board recognizes that a claim has been made that the protection of the aggregate resource adversely impacts the property values on adjacent properties. The economic analysis from the Deschutes County Assessor's office, based on the property tax assessment 33 values of specific parcels adjacent to and within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mining sites, indicates that there are no downward fluctuations in these property values. The same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The Board accepts and believes the economic property value trending analysis from the County Assessor and finds that no significant negative economic consequence to the property values of the conflicting land uses results from the protection of the aggregate resource. The Board finds that protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in the increased cost of maintaining the transportation infrastructure caused by the higher rate of deterioration on the roads which bear the burden of the traffic associated with the surface mining activity. Preserving the aggregate resource adds to the overall county supply which serves to maintain the cost of the resource within the County. In Ordinances No. 90-028 and 90-025, incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that the inventory of identified available aggregate sites for sand and gravel is needed to meet the anticipated demand for the County's future. Failure to protect an adequate supply of the aggregate resource would result in the negative economic consequence of a higher cost for the resource and higher cost for its use in the development of the County. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource will result in accelerated deterioration of the roadways which bear the traffic associated with the surface mining activity. The cost of maintaining these roads is a negative economic consequence of preserving the aggregate resource. Because the aggregate resource is a necessary commodity for the development of the area, and transportation of the resource necessarily affects the transportation routes, preserving the aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area will result in net positive economic consequences by minimizing the extent of roadways that are impacted. The Board recognizes that the cost associated with maintenance of the transportation infrastructure can be significant. By Ordinance No. 90-014, the County has required that improvements or fees in lieu of improvements reflecting the pro rata share of the actual total cost of capital expenditures of the road improvements necessitated by or benefitting the surface mining operation can be transferred to the surface mining operator if the determination is made that the increased traffic on the road due to the surface mining activity will damage the road. For Site No. 368, its close proximity to the crusher and to the market area minimizes this negative economic consequence and, the preservation of aggregate resource in close proximity to the market area results in positive economic consequences by minimizing the need to maintain the transportation infrastructure 34 "j 8 U't '17 5 5 which would be utilized by the transportation of the aggregate resource located further from the market demand area. Preservation of the aggregate resource adds to the overall supply of aggregate which serves to maintain an economical cost of the resource in the County. Failure to protect an adequate supply would result in negative economic consequences. Protecting the aggregate resource will have some short- term negative impacts on the ability to utilize the site's property for other uses. However, surface mining is a transitional use and by preserving the aggregate resource for resource production, the site is still able to provide economic benefits to the community presently and in the future. The Board finds that the value of the use of the aggregate resource site for other uses than resource extraction for temporary uses such as farming and agriculture prior to mining, and its economic value for other uses following mining, is a positive economic consequence to protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses. 4 Social Consequences. The Board finds that the protection of the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses would result in both positive and negative social consequences to the conflicting land uses. The impacts of dust, noise, traffic and aesthetic considerations related to the alterations in the landscape can adversely affect the liveability and social character of the conflicting land uses. For Site No. 368, the Board finds that the impacts from the surface mining operation on the conflicting land uses which affect the liveability and social character of the area are the noise and dust impacts associated with the surface mining activity, as well as the visual impact on the change in topography. The Board accepts the report from CHZM Hill which concludes that the noise impacts associated with the operation will, with appropriate mitigation measures, meet the DEQ standards. Further, the Board finds that the visual impact to the conflicting land uses resulting from the impact of dust will be substantially mitigated by operational standards. The alteration in the natural state of the landscape is a short-term impact. Limiting the active mining area to 5 acres with ongoing reclamation and irrigation and planting of the reclaimed terraces will minimize the negative social consequences. The significance of the negative social consequence of these impacts on these conflicting land uses will be substantially diminished by the implementation of dust emission controls and operational restrictions on the surface mining activity. Bypassing the roads presently used by the residents in the area will further reduce impacts on the liveability of the area. Preserving the aggregate resource serves to protect the area from additional development which could otherwise have 35 Awa t - I r 5G negative social consequences to the conflicting land uses by changing the social character of the area. The long-term preservation of Site No. 368 by the conservation easement and the dedication of public access to the river are positive social consequences to the conflicting land uses from protecting the aggregate resource. 5 Energy Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the aggregate resource over the conflicting land uses results in positive and negative energy consequences. Increased energy consumption is necessary at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the surface mining equipment and fuel necessary to transport the aggregate product to the end use. However, given the location of Site No. 368, near the major aggregate market, the expenditure of energy for transportation is not significant. And, utilization of aggregate resources near the major market areas results in positive energy consequences when compared to the necessary use of fuel to transport aggregate resources from inventoried sites further from the major market area. Failure to protect the aggregate resources in close proximity to the market would result in significant negative energy consequences since additional energy consumption would be necessary to transport the aggregate resources located greater distances than Site No. 368 from the market areas. 13. ESEE Consequences -- Conflicting Land Uses Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 1 This section of the findings addresses the ESEE consequences on the aggregate resource from protecting the conflicting land uses. Both the impacts on the resource and the conflicting land uses are considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. 2 Environmental Consequences. Protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would result in both positive and negative environmental consequences. Protecting the conflicting land uses would have the effect of precluding or limiting surface mining activity due to noise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts. Fully protecting the conflicting land uses would preclude mining. This would have the consequence of eliminating the impacts of noise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining which, in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures, can have negative environmental consequences. However, protecting the conflicting land uses would also have negative environmental consequences. The development of the site and surrounding area by the proliferation of conflicting land uses would- negatively impact the identified Goal 5 resources of the area. The Board finds that the value of the open space and scenic waterway resources may be negatively impacted by the 36 of - 1757 development of additional rural residential uses. Such uses are permanent, unlike the transitional nature of surface mining, and would have a long-term negative impact on the resources. Also, allowing the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would preclude the enhancement of the site for future environmental amenities which would result from reclaiming the site to more productive pasture land or by preserving the area for open space following extraction of the resource, as provided for in the conservation easement proposed for Site No. 368. 3 Social Consequences. Protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would have negative social consequences on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. The County's demand for aggregate is 2 million cubic yards per year. An adequate supply of aggregate is needed to maintain the County road transportation infrastructure and to permit development of housing and commercial/ industrial uses. Negative social consequences will result if the building costs increase from a shortage of readily available aggregate. The Board finds that protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource would preclude the extraction of the aggregate resource. Most of the uses allowed in the surrounding zoning districts are noise -sensitive uses for purposes of the DEQ noise regulations and the impacts of dust emissions, traffic and aesthetic changes to the landscape associated with surface mining would have the effect of precluding surface mining activities if conflicting land uses were fully protected. Full protection of conflicting land uses would have the positive social consequence of eliminating the impacts of noise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts which, in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures, can have negative social consequences. However, protecting the conflicting land uses would also result in negative social consequences from the proliferation of development negatively impacting the social rural character of the area. 4 Energy Consequences. Allowing the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource at Site No. 368 would have a negative energy consequence because aggregate resources necessary for County aggregate supply would be required from sites a greater distance from the market area. This would increase the energy consumption necessary for transportation of the aggregate resource and the cost of maintaining more of the transportation system bearing the burden of that increased traffic. In addition, allowing the conflicting land uses would increase the traffic utilizing the infrastructure in the area. The development of conflicting land uses with a greater life span than surface mining would have a greater long-term negative energy consequence than surface mining. 5 Economic Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the conflicting land uses over the aggregate resource can have the effect of preventing or limiting the utilization of the aggregate resource at the site due to the impacts of noise, dust, traffic and aesthetic considerations related to the topographical and landscape impacts which constrain surface mining activities located near conflicting land uses. The failure to protect aggregate resources which are located in close proximity to the market demand will have a negative economic consequence of increasing the overall cost of the resource given the costs of transporting the aggregate resource from a location further from the major market area and by increasing the cost of maintaining the transportation infrastructure of more road miles which will bear the burden of transporting the aggregate from resource sites further from the major market area. 14. Program to Achieve Goal 5 Pursuant to OAR 660-16-010, the Board finds that there is adequate information on the location, quality and quantity of the inventoried aggregate resource, as well as on the nature of the conflicting land uses and ESEE consequences for Site No. 368. Based on the determination of the ESEE consequences, the County has developed a program to achieve Goal 5. The Board finds that, based on the ESEE consequences, both the aggregate resource and the resource conflicts are important relative to one another. The ESEE consequences should be balanced so as both to protect the aggregate resource to the extent referenced herein and to allow the resource conflicts. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), a program should be developed to limit the use of the aggregate resource and protect the resource conflicts. Based on the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting land uses and protecting the inventoried aggregate resources, the Board finds that with respect to existing conflicting land uses, both the aggregate resource and the existing conflicting land uses are important relative to each other. Accordingly, the Board finds that, pursuant to OAR 660-16- 010, it will protect the aggregate resource and the existing conflicting land uses in favor of each other. The Board finds that existing conflicting land uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations. The Board finds that the value of potential future development of conflicting land uses to the inventoried aggregate resource are not important enough to limit the protection of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future conflicting land uses, if any, can be accommodated on other similarly zoned lands in the County. W To implement this decision, Site No. 368 will be zoned for surface mining ("SM"), subject to the following ESEE conditions: (1) Extraction of aggregate materials will be allowed only on Terraces No. 2 and No. 4, subject to the terms of the proposed surface mining operation plan (2) Processing will be prohibited on-site. (3) Excavation will be limited to 5 acres at any one time with concurrent reclamation. (4) Water rights shall remain on the property as long as necessary to reclaim the land. (5) All permit conditions from Parks for the scenic waterway shall be met. (6) The agreement between the owner/operator and Conservationists shall be met. (7) The agreement between the owner/operator and Deschutes River Ranch shall be met. (8) Work hours shall be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., no weekends or holidays. (9) The operators shall confer with ODFW on wildlife and habitat considerations during the operation and reclamation. (10) That portion of the access road entering on to Cline Falls Road shall be paved. (11) The site shall be graded in order to allow or irrigation. (12) Screening shall be provided. (13) DEQ noise standards be met. Resource Conflicts. The Board finds that the ESEE conditions on the protection of the aggregate resource limits the protection of the aggregate resource in order to protect the resource conflicts. The Board further finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting the aggregate resource, since a substantial portion of the aggregate site will be allowed to be mined. Aggregate Resource. The Board finds that the aggregate resource will be protected by zoning Site No. 368 for surface mining ("SM") to allow for surface mining operations. The Board finds that Ordinance No. 90-014 allows mining activities as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the SM zone. Conflicting land uses such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit the surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the SM zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of the protection of sufficient mineral and aggregate resources to meet the County's aggregate needs. The Board finds that the imposition of the Surface Mining Impact Area ("SMIA") combining zone on the impact area as set forth in Ordinance No. 90-014 will further protect the aggregate resource. The impact area surrounding the SM zone on Site No. 368 is so designated. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (1) New conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activity; and (2) In all cases of new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses, such as are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions are sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflicting future development. The Board finds that in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning Site No. 368 for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, satisfies the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resource to meet the needs of the County. Resource conflicts and existing conflicting land uses are protected by the requirement that newly -sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, and adhere to limits on 40 1761 maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations, as provided for in Ordinance No. 90-014 and in the ESEE conditions. W56/01/0006-1/06 01 �"- 1 762 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 366 Site Number 366 is located in the Highway Division right-of- way in Township 16 South, Range 12, Section 30, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 366 comprises approximately 14.1 acres and is located on the north side of Highway 20, approximately one-half mile northwest of Tumalo. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned MUA-10, SMR and LM. This sites was originally given a wrong tax lot number and wrong location. This was resolves through the Board hearing process. Part of the con- fusion came due to the lack of a tax lot number, which describes this parcel. The highway right-of-way at this location is approximately 900 feet wide. Numerous maps in the file are in error. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict - 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 ?01 1163 ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 40,000 cubic yards of ODOT quality gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. This northwest of Tumalo and is the state Highway Division. least 20 years and is used the highway in this area. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. site is located along Highway an existing gravel pit used by The site has been in use for primarily in road construction 20 at on 1. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning as LM indicates important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact open space resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 9 e 21�'A(j b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the MUA-10 and EFU-20 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. (2) The impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensi- tive uses, as defined below. Surrounding zones (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of.the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. However, due to the large lot sizes in the 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 ;- _ s ; 161 f�� -1 - :1 7 6 5 area, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, riparian areas, fish resources, and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 17 6 G sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. the Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Natural 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 ,..yi}t ) a01 " Y6{ The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 .1 011 1" 1.168 scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway maintenance. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new develop- ment. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660- 16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve every- day transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 i 0 l -y :1 , -1 0 tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations; the owner has indicated that that would not be a problem in this case. Protection of sur- rounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resour- ces for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 energy commitment because of the life span of such develop- ment. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; The Board finds that processing on site will {not} be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 i U I - 1 Y'x3 demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 366 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #366 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/10/87 4. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/17/86 5. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/1/85 6. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/29/83 7. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 8/2/82 8. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 7/22/82 9. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 9/24/81 10. GRANT OF TOTAL AND /OR LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 7/6/81 11. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 6/16/80 12. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/12/79 13. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXCEPTION DATED 9/16/88 14. LETTER FROM STATE HWY TO PLANNING DIVISION 15. MAP 16. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 17. OLD MAP 18. ZONE CHANGE INFORMATION 19. NOTIFICATION MAPS 20. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 21. MYLAR 1 ,01 -, 1775 22. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 23. LETTER FROM KENNETH CARDWELL 8/14/89 24. 25. ERATTA SHEET 26. MEMORANDUM 27. LETTER FROM STAN & DOLORES GROTJAN 7/27/89 c.—�? 6i ivy D Com�nGkCISO-A on -c 2 4 X776 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 370 Site Number 370, occupying tax lots 400, 402, 501, 1102, 1400, 2501, 2700, 3200, 4200, 4300, 4400, 1099, 2301, 2302, 2600, 3800, 2400 and 2500 in Township 16 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 31, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that prelimin- ary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 370 constitutes the headquarters site for Bend Aggregate and Paving and is located in Tumalo, just off Highway 20. The site is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned SMR, R & D, MUA-10, EFU-20, RSR -5 and RSR -M. The staff report erroneously stated that the site was located in a landscape management zone. No such overlay applies to this site. This site is listed on the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the mineral and aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's mineral and aggregate resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identi- fied conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evalu- ated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protec- ting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 h ?01 - 1777 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife and a representative from Bend Aggre- gate and Paving. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. Although the County's Goal 5 mineral and aggre- gate inventory states that the site is a storage site only, the Board finds that the site has some amount of unextracted sand and gravel on it. The site is a historical mining site going back 50 years. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is the location of Bend Aggregate and Paving. The site is located in Tumalo, South of Highway 20 West, along Cook Avenue. Access to the offices, paving plant and pits is off Cook Avenue. The Deschutes River is just east of the subject site within 250 feet on the southern end. Highway 20 West is just across the river to the east and borders the site on the north. The site is improved with an office, old house and a number of industrial buildings and equipment which are used in the aggregate/paving business. A majority of the surrounding property is additional mining property. The town of Tumalo is just north of the site, across Highway 20. To the east is the Deschutes River and Highway 20. To the south is site 304. There are also a couple of older homes just south of the subject site. Within one-half mile of the site is Tumalo to the north, vacant land to the west, vacant aggregate reserve land to the south and the Deschutes River and Highway 20 to the east. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Goal 5. Although the staff report listed resource conflicts as scenic and wildlife, the Board finds that no such conflicts exist at this site. Norm Behrens of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife testified that the area was outside the deer winter range. With respect to scenic values, the area is not located within an LM zone and has been fully devel- oped, consequently there are no conflicts with scenic values. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 0 ,l 1778 b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140 (RSR -M), 4.150 (RSR -5) and 4.230 (R&D) of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the SM and SMR zones to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclusion of other uses. The entire site is fully committed to surface mining activities. Surrounding zones (EFU-20, R&D, RR -10, RSR -M, RSR -5) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the surrounding zones would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. This area presently has existing research facilities and some commercial development and residential devel- opment at the Tumalo Rim subdivision and in the town of Tumalo to the north. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods. Because the processing plant is on-site, truck traffic conflicts with residential neighborhoods would be minimized. The area does have substantial bicycled traffic, which could be adversely affected by truck traffic. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 75 (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The staff report indicates that the site is within view of some of the Tumalo Rim Drive homes. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. The Board finds that much of the property immediately adjacent to this site is zoned SM or SMR and is already committed to mining uses. Such surrounding mining development lowers the level of conflict at this site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. This site has been committed to surface mining for 50 years, so property values should not be affected by the site. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 t () Al _ 1'780 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Due to the minimal amount of aggregate remaining at the site, and the fact the processing occurs on site, traffic impacts should be minimal. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 6. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that whatever the social consequences are of mining activity at the site, such consequences are currently being experienced due to the historic use at the site. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 8. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that the environmental consequences of mining currently affecting this site are the noise and dust impacts and the physical scarring of the landscape set forth above. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 9. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. In addition, there is the further economic consequence of failing to protect sources of aggregate such as this located close to market areas and processing sites. 10. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this and similar sites would be primarily increased costs for road maintenance and con- struction materials. 11. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well limit mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be limited. 12. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 IYS2 13. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The quality and location of this deposit close to the Bend urban market and the Bend Aggregate processing plant make it an important resource. This latter point is an important factor given the $.22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (c) Existing commercial and residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop and/or occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic and quality of life and health and safety expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; and (b) DEQ noise and dust standards shall be adhered to. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 i0l - 1183 Mineral Resource 15. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by continuing the SM zoning to allow for surface mining activi- ties. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 16. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 1784 17. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 18. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses are protected by the requirement that DEQ standards be met. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 370 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #370 i(aI - 1.185 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 3. MAPS 4. DISTRICT OWNER LANDS LEASED TO CASCADE PUMICE 5. TABLE OF LOCATIONS SUBMITTED BY CASCSDE PUMICE CO. 6. TABLE OF FUTURE AGGREGATE RESERVES 7. SURFACE MINING PROPERTY OF BEND AGGREGATE AND PAVING 8. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/6/87 9. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/18/86 10. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/3/85 11. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/24/84 12. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/4/83 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/1/82 14. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/7/81 15. LETTER FROM JERRY CURL DATED 9/11/80 16. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/8/80 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 9/4/80 18. LETTER FROM JANET L. BOETTCHER DATED 5/27/80 19. OLD NOTIFICATION LIST 20. BEND AGGREGATE MINING RESOURCES 21. LETTER FROM JERRY CURL DATED 22. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 23. NOTIFICATION MAPS 24. MYLAR 25. LETTER FROM COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES DATED 8/11/89 26. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMENDATION 27. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/20/89 a$ boa d oil nubs all- Corr) rn (,�;sbnw-rs de6s'ion mi nu—